Slashdot Mirror
'Dangers of the Internet' Resolution Passed By Senate
destinyland writes "Apparently June is national 'Internet is Dangerous' month. The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Americans to 'learn more about the dangers of the Internet.' And what counts as a danger? Disabling censorware, or making friends online if you ever plan to meet them in real life. Its extreme negativity is disappointing. But remember — it passed unanimously. From the tech blorge article: 'It's not just a resolution. A few corporations are actually trying to cash in on this misguided disinformation campaign, including BSafe Online, a Tennessee company which markets a PC filtering software. (I wonder if it's one of the ones that can be disabled by 31% of America's teenagers...) Their CEO has an encouraging message for parents about safety on the internet. "This is a battle they must fight everyday with their children in order to keep pornographers, sexual predators and cyber-bullies at bay." And keeping those pornographers and sexual predators away will cost you a mere $70 a year...'"
In 1910 people were buying "comet pills" to protect them from Halley's. Same shit.
I'll stand this on it's head: Why should the technically competent or even just those with a lick of common sense be penalized for the actions of the stupid?
Every router on the market has connection logging functionality, along with blacklists, whitelists, and password-protected access. It's all the tools you need to keep your kid from seeing what you don't want them to see, provided you're willing to spend the time to set things up.
Or you can practice what my mom did: Pop into the computer room (no computer in -my- room, my parents knew they'd never see me again) at random intervals to see what her rotten kid was up to.
Of course this was all back before the general internet was "dangerous" and at that time only AOL chat rooms were the source of all that was evil in the world. Funny how the magazines never mentioned the far more evil IRC... I suppose before that it was Usenet, and before that it was BBSes. Wow, what was the source of all evil before there were BBSes? Was the world just a good and happy place?
End of lesson. You may press the button.
You and me both. I would get picked on, I tried to fight back[1], I got suspended. Every time. Fucking pinhead principal kept telling me to go fetch a teacher when someone did that.
/That/ won't get my butt kicked after school for being a rat. Gods forbid I try to be manly enough to defend myself.[3]
Yeah, I'm supposed to walk off when someone's following me and hitting me, look for a teacher when the nearest may be a ways away[2], and tattle.
Fifteen years later and I'm still a little bitter. At least I'm in a different town and don't have to see any of those fuckers anymore.
[1] As much as I could, since I have no depth perception and thus can't accurately throw a punch.
[2] Nobody's stupid enough to start a fight where a teacher might *see* you.
[3] Did start carrying a Swiss army knife for just such an occasion. This was before ZOMG Columbine!, and I only had to wave it threateningly once outside of school.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
If my understanding of the American school system is correct, then that would probably be the only form of sex education a lot of American kids get (notwithstanding the pro-abstinence education).
Results don't matter, it's the intentions of the legislation that matter. As long as you "care" as a politician then you've done your job. Go ahead, outlaw incandescent light bulbs and institute hate crime legislation. At least you've done something. And the best part? As a politician you've done it because you had good intentions. As long as you have good intentions in the politically correct climate then you've done your job. Who cares if it really does anything, what matters is you meant well.
"The idea that legislators or judges or whomever should be experts, or even more familiar than the average person, with a subject in front of them is just not viable."
The Courts have access to expert witnesses, and an adversarial system whereby all parties to the question can bring forth experts to testify on the expert stuff which lay people can't understand.
At any time if a judge believed that the evidence was too technical and a reasonable person could not understand it he is duty bound to rule the evidence inadmissible. On the other hand an incomprehensible law is legally impossible to resolve in court as no experts may be called to interpret the law.
There is no excuse for lawmakers to simply wash their hands of responsibility. If they dont understand what they are agreeing to, they should vote NO and say the law is incomprehensible to them. The whole point of science (and the law) is that any reasonable person can understand it if they put in the effort. Once science (or law) becomes incomprehensible to anyone except certain special individuals then we've gone beyond science or justice and entered the realm of mysticism, the occult and theocracy/technocracy.
Moreover, the courts, when interpretting laws presume that legislature knows exactly what the law means and wants it to mean that.
moreover, if politicians are too stupid to understand the law, then how the hell are judges, juries, lawyers supposed to ever understand it?
At the end of the day, the scenario that there are valid laws that judges, lawyers and politicians can not understand is legally impossible; it violates the fundamental principles of justice and would render any such law unconstitutional and of no force or effect.
"The only reason I can imagine a human being voluntarily subjecting themselves to a lifetime of [politics] would be because they see an opportunity to rob us all blind in the process."
alternatively they are a monarch and feel it is their obligation to their nation, and the community of sovereign nations, and it defines the very core reason of their personal existence. Of course, you dont have that in the US, so pure greed, corruption and kickbacks is probably the actual justification.
(there is also the remote possibility of an honest person being elected but that rarely ever happens)
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.