Slashdot Mirror


Big Mother Is Watching

theodp writes "Newsweek reports that high-schoolers are being denied the joy of ordering unhealthy lunches thanks to their schools' adoption of services like MealpayPlus. New web-based services allow moms to prepay for cafeteria food, specify what their kid can and can't buy, and go online to track his purchases." From the article: "If the child tries to buy a prohibited item, an alert flashes on the cashier's computer. Of course, the system isn't foolproof. According to a KRC Research survey, 73 percent of 8- to 12-year-olds are throwing out part of their lunches at least once a week; 36 percent are trading them." All I ever got was PB&J.

42 of 533 comments (clear)

  1. talk about over protective by coffeeisclassy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you feel the need to control what your kid eats in high school through a system like this, you've allready failed as a parent.

    1. Re:talk about over protective by Kelnor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But its a lot easier for parents to just fill out a checklist than to teach their children some lessons about healthy food and the right amount of sport to compensate fast food. Its like TV, why raising your kids by yourself if the little friend from Panasonic can do it also

    2. Re:talk about over protective by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You have way too much confidence in high school kids. Let's face it, they are still kids.

      I don't see what's so wrong with this. As long as the kids live at home, the parents should have a say in what the kids eat, what they wear and so on. If this system helps in achieving that goal, good. Another example is a parent who buys a cell phone to a kid on the condition that a) the kid carries it with him when he's out with his friends and b) answers the parent's call or at least calls back ASAP. Overprotective? I don't think so. Just common sense.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:talk about over protective by nude-fox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but then your child ends up stunted do you really want to control everything your child does in his life and when he/she is 18 just shove him out the door and say have fun in real life he will be tottally unprepared for it so yes it is overpretective i'm sorry but people need to make their own mistakes growing up and then feel the consequences of those mistakes you cant protect your child from the big bad boogeyman that is real life forever

    4. Re:talk about over protective by October_30th · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Oh, so the kids should be allowed to get fat and develop health problems like diabetes, BEFORE the parents should be allowed to say something?


      Bollocks. Preventing obesity is a good reason to monitor what your kids eat.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    5. Re:talk about over protective by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A fine sentiment, but health is something that kids should not be allowed to make mistakes with.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    6. Re:talk about over protective by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Isn't it amusing, the parents shouldn't control what their own children eat but corporations are allowed to use mass marketing in every waking moment of a childs life, as well as addictive junk additives in the 'food', to get the children to eat what most of the directors of the junk food companies would not eat themselves or allow their own children to eat. For those who don't think those junk additives are addictive, consider the efforts parents have to go to stop the children eating the crap, hell, a new successful company exists because of it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:talk about over protective by LilGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kids have to be able to make mistakes with their health. Many kids experiment with drugs in high school, but yet they're not considered 'mature' enough to decide what they want to eat? What happens when they grow older and have never made any decisions for themselves? Those are the kids that live with mom and dad until they're 30, or until their parents throw them out of the house. Raising kids is tough, but if you honestly need to control a high-schooler's diet, you definitely need a little help in the parenting department.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    8. Re:talk about over protective by teh+kurisu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Experimenting with drugs is not a sign of maturity.

    9. Re:talk about over protective by Flounder · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Many kids experiment with drugs in high school, but yet they're not considered 'mature' enough to decide what they want to eat?

      What kind of backwoods logic is this? They're not mature enough to experiment with drugs either. There's a time and a place for that sort of thing. College.

      We're talking about high schoolers here. If they want to buy junk food, then they can get a job and pay for it themselves. This program is about the parents deciding how THEIR money should be spent.

      Raising kids is tough, but if you honestly need to control a high-schooler's diet, you definitely need a little help in the parenting department.

      Why do I get the feeling you don't have kids.

      --

      No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

    10. Re:talk about over protective by kdemetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree

      when childeren go trough puberty , they experiment with all kinds of things , it's a part of discovering themselves .
      And the more you deny them to experiment , the more they will resist this .

      Of course , drugs is more of a problem because it's addicitive.

      The system is wrong , because it's not neccesary .

      The right way of workings is to let them discover things themselves , experiment with it , and let them draw conclusions of what's good and bad . That's the best way they will learn .

      And the more you try to restrict them , the more they will want to try it .

      you may get somethingh like this : one child has a parent who doesn't care what the child eats , he buys all the food for those who are not allowed to eat it , and he asks a higher prize for it .

      Kids are not stupid , you know .

    11. Re:talk about over protective by Rob_Warwick · · Score: 4, Funny
      Its like TV, why raising your kids by yourself if the little friend from Panasonic can do it also

      You're still failing at raising your kids. Every one knows that responsible parents only let their kids watch a TV from Sony!

      Comeon, they aren't going to become good little consumers without proper guidance.

    12. Re:talk about over protective by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Overprotective? I don't think so. Just common sense.

      Jesus, all of a sudden I'm glad I'm old and don't have to grow up with this crap. Admiral Farragut was given his first command (a prize ship) during the War of 1812 when he was twelve years old. He not only brought the ship to port successfully, but had to put down a threatend armed revolt by the ship's original captain to do it.

      If high school kids today are such kids that they can't even be trusted to buy their own lunch (when many of them are actually old enough to leave home) the only possible reason for it is . . .High School. They've been taught incompetence.

      The "repressed" 50s look like Shangri-fucking-La in comparison.

      KFG

    13. Re:talk about over protective by laparel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it that bad in schools these days that if you let your child choose his own meals he'd end up obese? If it is then the problem is in the school's menu. We are teenagers but that doesn't mean we don't watch our health/well being. Everybody wants to look good and presentable, _especially_ in highschool... Besides, if a kid does ends up on Obese II/III - a real cause of alarm - I doubt it was because of the meals he choose at school. I'd watch out his/her food intake at home.

    14. Re:talk about over protective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So true, if everyone would just rely on the well known bastion of self control that children have, all you have to do is teach and they'll make the right decision all the time. Or at least if they make the wrong decision once, they probably won't do it again, and this is so true with something like food where eating one unhealthy meal is usually all it takes for a child to go screaming back to mommy and daddy for healthy food.

    15. Re:talk about over protective by shotgunefx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes and no. Some autonomy is good. How much should depend on how much the child has earned. Letting kids do whatever they want is bad, not letting them do anything is bad too.

      It's a balance. You can't micromanage every second of a kid's life and then expect him magically to be able to deal with the real world. But a lot of kids, if they were allowed to do whatever they felt like would end up in the gutter or worse.

      --

      -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    16. Re:talk about over protective by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I think experimenting with drugs is a sign of maturity."

      I think it's a sign of complete lack of common sense. Access matters. Temptations matter. People are not all that strong-willed, often we have conflicting desires. Imagine we had a more flexible payment system, where you could put in a block in your paycard to prevent yourself from gambling, buying fast-food etc. Do you think people would have used it? Do you think it would have helped? My answer is: of COURSE it would!

      Basically, this is the same thing. I'd say it would have to be done in cooperation with the kids to be effective (else they would go around it), but I'm quite certain that kids know, on some level, that fast food is bad for them. Why not give that knowledge a little help in standing up to all the other impulses that rage around in our brains and bodies?

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    17. Re:talk about over protective by identity0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ugh... I have to respond to this utter bull, even though it's late(early?) It's funny how the "skool suks, down wit da man!" bias of Slashdot can mod up even the most ridiculous of posts.

      Are you saying you grew up in the 1800s? Remembering your childhood, are you?

      Saying that we should expect our 12-year olds to command navy ships and that it's a failure of society when they can't is so utterly retarded I don't know where to begin.

      First off, the incident you describe would have been rather unusual back then. I don't think there was an expectation that most 12-year olds would be able to perform such a task. In that era, most of them would have been farm boys who didn't command anything.

      The kids of that era also would have had lunch made by... mom. The fact that kids have to have some written directive from parents to control what they eat only shows the relative freedom kids have in consumer choice, for good or bad. Kids of the 19th century would have had more parental control over their diet, not less.

      You think kids would be supermen or full adults were it not for our evil educational system? Hah. Keep on dreaming.

    18. Re:talk about over protective by gutnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a parent you need to find the fine line where to stop controling. Sure, there are some area where experimentation must be strickly understood and respected by the kid.

      Like unprotected sex, drugs, eating whatever crap when you are diabetic, crime, ... those area are not open to experimentation. Experimentation there will likely screw up your life far deeper than the little pleasure or "cool factor" they give you now.

      Off course, using a kind of automated system like here is a bit in contradiction with the fact that those limits must be "understood" as I said before. If your kids don't know there is some danger in that direction, they will find a way to overcome it.
      On the other hand, that can a usefull tool for kids with specific deseases and avoid stupid mistakes ( e.g. I have a friend critically to eggs and he made some stupid mistake (i.e. not intentionally) while younger )

    19. Re:talk about over protective by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you for saying everything that I wanted to say in a few short sentences.
      People who believe that some mythical "good parenting" exists that will result in kids always being well-behaved doesn't know kids.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    20. Re:talk about over protective by the+phantom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [blockquote]Kids are not stupid , you know .[/blockquote] Yes, they are.

      Okay, maybe they are not [i]stupid[/i]. They are ignorant, naive, and not fully developed. They have not seen what drugs / uprotected sex / &c. can do to them (or others), and they assume that life won't happen to them. The are immortal and invincible. They are not fully developed adults, and should not be treated as such.

      Its funny, 10 years ago, I would have agreed with just about everything you said in your post. Let the kids experiment, let them learn right from wrong on their own. Now, I am glad that my parents did set up limits. I recognize that 10 years ago, many of the decisions that I made at the time were pretty fucking boneheaded. I am glad that my parents put limits on what I could do, and that I didn't manage to do more damage to myself than I did. I certainly feel that teenagers should have fewer limits placed upon them than, say, 8 year olds, but that does not change the fact that they are, for the most part (there are always exceptions), not adults, and do not behave as such. xander

    21. Re:talk about over protective by boingo82 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It also wasn't that long ago that the options for "what to eat" did not include Velveeta brand plastic cheese, and fried chicken and pizza drowned in ranch sauce, which was the lunch of choice at my high school.*

      Keep in mind that they didn't start pumping food full of HFCS and trans fats until 20-30 years ago.

      It's not the genetic code, it's the availability of cheap, processed CRAP for food.

      Teenagers are notoriously bad at making pleasure-now-vs.-health-later decisions. There's no reason the parents shouldn't be able to dictate what they eat, especially when the parents are paying for it.

      *Why do they go on and on in health class about healthy eating, and then at lunch your choices are

      • canned peas, lukewarm
      • "fruit" cocktail in heavy syrup
      • fried chicken and pizza
      --
      As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
  2. Someone famous once said by vga_init · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The more you tighten your grip on the galaxy, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!"

    I realize that is not the original text of the quote, but I revised it for clarity. Also, before you mod me offtopic, how many of you won't admit that your parents were like the evil empire? I know mine were.

  3. Love and care. by EnsilZah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, nothing beats the love and care put into making your child's lunch... ...checklist.

  4. Let's get it over with by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When your in school, you're already bound by what you can and can't say, write, hear and wear. That said, why not just serve only HEATHY food in the first place!!! Now that would be something worthy of enforcing.

    The amount of porkers I see in the malls these days scare me! Their shit diet is going to cost society massive amounts in health care!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  5. This is actually a welcome initiative... by jkrise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Too much is made about child's rights and too little is spoken about dubious advertising for unhealthy food items. In Japan, there is a huge promotional campaign to get kids eat Whale Meat for Lunch!

    Obesity in kids is the no. 1 health problem facing the US today, and if parents can have a say on what their kids can order, it's great! The choice is between listening to one's parents and listening to (untrulthful) advertisemsnts. Parents ought to know better.

    As usual, the title Big Mother is misleading and mischevous. Parents watching their children cannot be equated to the Government spying on citizens. The former is a duty, the latter is a violation of rights to privacy.

    Too bad, Slashdot is resorting to Flamebait to ensure more replies.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  6. Great, another tax by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MealpayPlus doesn't charge for its system; it makes money on transaction fees when parents put money on kids' accounts.

    If this is like some offices, you can't pay in case (article doesn't specify). Approach the counter without a card and you're just met by a queer look from the cashier.

    The site says it's a flat $2.00 fee per transactions. Now you're torn between a 1% tax to give the kid a whopping $200 on the card (max) or a 10% tax if you just give them a benjamin every few days.

  7. In other news... by ChaseTec · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bill Thompson, the only kid at Deerbrook High School still granted pizza privileges, has become the youngest person ever to retire at age 17.

    --
    My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
  8. Weird issues for Finns by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Finland school lunches are free. Not only are they free, but kids get a healthy meal including fresh vegetables and often fruit every single day, bread and milk is included as well. Everyone eats the same meal, including the teachers. The only exceptions are people with allergies / ethic issues (vegetarians etc). You're free not to eat if you don't like the food, of course.

    I strongly believe that good eating habits at an early age is paramount for learning a healthy lifestyle. One can have many opinions of socialistic solutions, but when it comes to nutrition and education I'm all for it. Having seen the muck english school kids have to eat I'm rather grateful I was born in Finland.

    My 2 cents, anyway.

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  9. Good for kids? by nbannerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Y'know, some of these kind of practices produce some surprising results in the real world. Whilst you or I probably look on slightly bemused, this kind of behaviour in schools can produce some interesting quirks.

    Here in the UK, there has been a similar kind of healthy food drive. Although parents are not given the levels of oversight seen here, fast food and vending machines are quickly becoming dirty words.

    However, in some cases children are fighting back in rather funny ways. In one school (I'd find the link if I wasn't late for work!) a group of children started buying snacks, cans of fizzy drink and chocolate from a local wholesaler, and then sold them on to children during break time and lunch.

    Expect to see something similar happen here; and make a note of the kids that start doing it, because they might just be the kind of people we see doing well in the business world in a few years time. Of course, it'll cause this prepay system to fall apart and be branded a failure as well, which is probably no bad thing.

    1. Re:Good for kids? by nbannerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, that wasn't too tough and I guess work can wait a bit longer; BBC News article discussing the new black market in schools in the UK. I found it quite interesting, hope someone else does as well.

  10. Ok, another "This is crap" moment... by Loligo · · Score: 4, Insightful


    I hear so many people talk about how Americans eat too much, how kids are too fat, and how it's always the parents' fault if a kid is fat.

    Now here's a way for parents to control what their kids eat, and people are screaming about how it's invasive and controlling.

    Screw you guys. If you're gonna play two sides of an issue, at least seperate it by a few degress, don't sit here and say how it's wrong for parents to let their kids eat crap and then say it's wrong for parents to NOT let their kids eat crap.

    Christ.

  11. I *am* a parent... by slippyblade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And am whole-heartedly offended by a lot of these comments. This program is yet another level of abstraction between parenting and the children.

    I have raised my kids, taught them right from wrong. I am also smart enough to realize that my kids are not idiots. They are not stupid and will find ways around things they don't understand or agree with... Just like I did as a child. When that happens, all you can do as a parent is hope you instilled the proper morals into the child.

    I'm sorry, it is NOT up to the lunch lady to determine what my kids eat. If I am that concerned about what my children eat at school, I'll make it myself! At one school they attended, this is exactly what I did. "Some parents don't have time for that!", you might say... Bullshit. If you have the time to screw around and have kids, you MAKE THE DAMN TIME to raise them. It's called parenting.

    This shit ranks right up there with Net-Nanny type things. If you mistrust your children to these kinds of extents, then you have failed as a parent and nothing can fix this. More and more the definition of "children" is getting pushed further up the age curve. This lunch program is in High-Schools for crying out loud. Kids who have their driver's licenses and are nearly the age of majority, yet they can't pick their own lunches? Um, yeah. That makes sense.

    I could rant on, but I'm tired. Night.

    1. Re:I *am* a parent... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, YOU are a parent.

      What worries me is that so many parents are not.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. "Moms"? by BarryNorton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fathers can't participate in this process then?

  13. Re:Newsflash: nothing is free. by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone had to work and pay taxes for that "free lunch". Contrary to what your local Socialist Indoctrinator says, it just didn't spring out from a magical "lunch machine".


    Indeed, about a third of my pay goes to taxes and other similar fees. I'm quite happy about it, as the money is mostly used for sensible spendings. How many medical procedures have you had for free? Education? Real social security?

    Yes the system has flaws, and no it's not free as in magically free. But it is parctially free, for the one using the services. It's a matter of opinion if it makes sense to take from those who have and give to those who need, but I'm not complaining as long as I find I can use the services paid for with my tax money when I am in a time of need.
    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  14. Re:Newsflash: nothing is free. by Marsmensch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I couldn't agree with you more

    It's also worth pointing out that in a system of socialized or largely socialized healthcare, in a democratic and transparent state (like you have in the scandinavian countries), the state has an incentive in promoting a healthy lifestyle for its citizens, and they have a stake in keeping the healthcare system from bein overburdened. It isn't surprising, then, that the most agressive anti-tobacco campaigns in Europe were launched in Sweden before being imitated by other governments.

    Of course, many libertarians will tell you that you have a right to pay for you own unhealthy behavior, which is true to a point, but if they believe your health exists entirely in a vacuum without affecting anybody else, they have no understanding of how social costs are... well... social.

    --
    Slashdot: news from nerds.
  15. Kids eat what their parents eat by foniksonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even in High School. If you're a parent and you eat junk or have junk in your home, ie: buy it for your kids or have it around for 'snacking' then you're responsible for your child's bad eating habits. You want your kids to eat right? Keep good healthy food in your home...

    Fresh vegetables and fruit.... once a week buy fresh stuff and put it out where it can be seen... fruits in a bowl and vegetables on display, both in fridge and on counter in a nice container or basket. Pre-make good salads... don't keep them in the pre-mixed bag you buy them in.. put them in a nice salad bowl that has a freshness feature (clay to keep moist but also has holes in bottom and sides to let extra moisture out... and add in some extras, carrot slivers, almonds, cranberries, etc. make them look tasty... if you eat meat add some hard-boiled egg white slices and turkey chunks

    Make good meals and stick them in the fridge as instant left-overs. These will be cheaper and better than a frozen dinner (less preservatives, etc.) and your teen will actually eat them, cause they can grab them late at night or whenever and heat them up on their own schedule, instead of grabbing a bag of chips or something.

    Easy pre-made meals: Lasagna or any Pasta dish, Stir-Fry, Burritos, Taco ingredients, Pre-made sandwiches and wraps, Roasts that can be sliced into cold-cuts (teen-age boys love cutting stuff and they'll just slice off a hunk and grab some cheese and bread), hard-boiled eggs (peeled or not), sliced up veggies (carrot sticks, cucumbers, brockley, etc.) with a good dip (humus or veggie/cream cheese is great).

    This might not sound like health-food but compared to the crap they'd stuff their faces with (think any fast-food or junk from convenience store) it's completely healthy and they'll eat it if it's made convenient for them.

    In the end you'll find that they will end up looking for similar foods when they are out of the house too. They might even end up taking their lunches to school because the food that's available at home is so much better than the crap at school... but let them keep their 'lunch money' as a reward or else they'll stop taking their lunch just to get the money so they can spend it on other things... who cares what,

    Point is they'll be healthier and it will only take a few hours a week on your part to make the food available in a appetizing form that's also convenient.

    BTW same thing applies to drinks... get rid of the canned sodas.. just put some pitchers of old-fahioned lemonade (cut the sugar down) and Iced tea and juice and plenty of water bottles.

    They'll still have some junk in their diet when out with friends but they won't be creating a habit while at home and the reality is that we all really spend the longest part of our 24 hour day at home... so make it a healthy one and you'll have healthy kids.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  16. And kids still need breathing space by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You, on the other hand, have too much confidence that the parents won't be control freaks. "Over-protective" doesn't sound that bad until you end up basically in a straitjacket of motherly love that crushes the life and sanity out of you. Don't underestimate how much "over" there can be in "overprotective."

    The last time such a system was discussed on /. it contained such gems as one mother getting horrified and confronting her daughter because... said daughter had bought 3 ounces of juice to wash down the food with. "Noooo! Think of all the calories in 3 ounces of juice!" Not an exact quote, but the same idea.

    To start with the _lesser_ problem, she was trying to raise her daughter as... what? An Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder case? Yes, obesity is bad, but if you're at the point where you count the few calories in a quarter of a cup of juice, do yourself a favour and kill yourself. We're not talking buying a big bottle of Coke, we're not talking even a can, we're talking 3 ounces. Of juice.

    Moving a bit upwards on the scale, such a remotely-controlled kid will grow to be completely unprepared for life. They never were trusted with making a decision of their own, and seeing the results, so they (A) just don't know what to do when mommy isn't around to remote-control them, and (B) completely lack the data to base a decision on. Playing and exploration in childhood are learning. Someone who has grown up with mommy taking all their decisions for them, hasn't learned anything.

    I know I basically went off guidance as every time I was out of reach of my control-freak parents. I ended up in an alcoholic coma in one of the few summer camps where they didn't tag along, as well as doing a thousand other stupid things. Partially because it was one occasion to vent all that built-up frustration of being little more than a remote-controlled puppet to my parents the rest of the time. But in retrospect the largest part was the aspect that I just had no freaking clue how to function without them remote-controlling me.

    Even after finishing college and moving away, it was like running into a brick wall as learning curves go. Without mom telling me what to do and when to do it, I suddenly had no flipping clue what _am_ I supposed to do and when. It took some rediscovering from scratch how to even function as an adult. (In all fairness, mom still tries to remote-control me. She'd be more than happy to still tell me exactly what and when to do, but at that point I had decided to at least try functioning as myself for a change.)

    But maybe more important is the psychological damage. Kids like adults (and like most animals, including your dog and cat) need some breathing space. Even the most affectionate lap cat needs its moments of being alone or doing its own thing, or it will go neurotic.

    E.g., I only have to look at my brother who at one point had a fit of anorexia over my parents complete control over his food. At one point as a kid he just stopped eating, and eventually ended up in hospital. They even ran all sorts of medical tests on him, because they suspected cancer the way he was losing weight. He was basically deflating as fast as, well, someone who doesn't eat at all any more. I can easily see that possibility in the future of such kid as the girl with her 3 ounces of juice.

    I managed to do somewhat better (or at least not swing to such extremes), partially by finding refuge in programming, partially by cherishing the moments I was finally out of my family's reach. I certainly didn't hate school too much. I actually had more freedom there than at home. Still, I ended up with some long term damage of my own anyway.

    E.g., I basically have to roll for willpower (if I'm allowed the D&D metaphor) to do anything, because some circuit in the back of the brain says "you know, mom would disapprove of me doing that. Or doing it that way." And I don't mean doing bad stuff, but even stuff like taking the trash out. Mom would certainly find something to complain

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  17. Re:Newsflash: nothing is free. by mmalove · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So they pay 33% taxes. So do we, the difference is in what you elect the government to spend the money on. They got free lunches, we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire solar system several times over. Now since it really doesn't matter who destroys the planet as we all die anyways, I'd rather have the free lunch.

    --
    You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
  18. Yes, because being marketed to is the only freedom by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    the parents shouldn't control what their own children eat but corporations are allowed to use mass marketing in every waking moment of a childs life
    Well, yes. "Freedom" today does not extend past the right to be marketed to. If no one can make a buck off of you, then you aren't free. Actually I shouldn't say "today," because this has long been the working definition of freedom. Dictatorship before Castro? No worries. Dictatorship under Castro? Tyranny. Neither China nor Russia are strong on human rights, but you don't hear "tyranny!" anymore, because we're making money off of them, meaning they're as free as they need to be. If corporations are allowed to profit from your existence, then you are by definition free, and if they are not, then you are not free. You can't find many models of freedom with any support today that don't revolve around your right to buy stuff.

    Saying stuff can be restricted, reading stuff can be restricted, the gender of the adult you can marry can be restricted, your movement can be restricted, your access to a fair trial can be restricted, your ability to sue for redress from government wrongs can be restricted, but if any corporation is blocked from marketing to you or in some way making money off of you, then that is the very freedom for which the forefathers fought, and a great wrong has been committed. All other freedoms are really luxuries.

  19. S.T.U.P.I.D. HAS DETECTED AN UNAPPROVED OPINION by Roody+Blashes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HALT CITIZEN
    ------
    The Slashbot and Troll Unbiased Primary Insight Diagram does not include reasoning which leads to the above opinion on the related matter. Common causes for deviating from the Primary Diagram include the following:

    1. Posts utilizing "common sense".
    2. Posts resulting from "informed users".
    3. Posts attempting to obtain a fair compromise on an issue.

    Specifically, your post above violates the following principle(s) which have been listed as approved opinions that may be posted on Slashdot:

    1. All activities engaged in by children, being pure and innocent, and never engaging in any behavior beyond the bounds set by "good" parents, which are not sanctioned as acceptable by the Slashdot population, are a direct result of poor parenting.

    2. All monitoring, on any level, in any capacity, by any person and of any person, for any reason or goal, is strictly a matter of Big Brotherism and is to be abhorred without question or additional information, the circumstances not bearing relevance on the approved opinion.

    Please immediately cease and desist all activites which may be characterized as "free thinking", "reasoned", or "rational". Failure to comply may result in poor moderation which could lead to the removal of your posting ability for pre-determined amounts of time, or for your posts to be removed from a threshold visible by normal users. However, note that the moderation system should not be construed as a form of censorship.

    The Slashdot Pre-approved User and Troll Unbiased Moderation Committee thanks you for your cooperation. Together, we can make slashdot a wonderful place to mouthbreathe.

    --
    If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?