I will make an addendum to my previous post (to you):
I said:
Average people I will allow some lenience towards. Leaders I have no sympathy for... This is really what I was implying in my original post. Punishing those people who should know better, and more specifically those people who have the power to get away with it. For the average citizen, I would agree; retro-active laws are hardly the place. Also, as I have stated, such practices should be taken with great care ("checks and balances", as the US Constitution was apparently based on [in part, at least]).
Also, a correction; I said:
I would never suggest such legislation should not be easy to create... I meant to say: "I would never suggest such legislation should be easy to create...
No new law should be allowed to punish retroactively, EVER. Perhaps you would want to read my reply to ultranova (that I just posted) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=511882&cid=22972902. I do have sympathy for what you and ultranova are saying, however I will never say never.
If it is in fact bad (precedence, etc) to make a law retro-active, then I would suggest that there should be a law that would prevent this from happening (which in many countries there are). The precedence (in the case where there are no retro-active laws in place) is de facto since anybody can arbitrarily make laws retro-active without legislation stating that they can't.
In many cases, there may be positive effects to retro-active legislation; like when a person is convicted of murder when the death penalty is in place, and afterwards the death penalty is repealed. I'm thinking more specifically of the very many cases that came to light through campaigns like the Innocent Project. Granted, I realize you emphasized "punishment" in your argument.
I would never suggest such legislation should not be easy to create, but I will never say never. In extreme cases of abuse, then extreme measures should be taken IMHO. Spyware distribution is perhaps not an extreme case.
I was thinking about the possible consequences and the precedence this would set (more so after I posted). I was actually anticipating a rebuttal). Perhaps you should think of my post more as a modest proposal.
I do remember reading in the local paper many, many years ago about a lawsuit in which the city (of Toronto, or perhaps one of the boroughs of Toronto) had a problem with a citizen's porch (my memory of the details are vague). The case went to court and the home owner won. The city was not happy with this so they changed the law and then brought the bylaw enforcement officer on her again. In the end the home owner ended up losing her house (mainly because of the court fees, fines, etc that all added up). This is not an example of establishing a retro-active law, but the principle of arbitrarily changing a law to suit your needs is demonstrated here.
I think making a law retro-active does have its applications however. For example, when there is an obvious case of "abuse" (and there are no existing laws, or there are loop-holes to allow for exploitation). I'm thinking of another example (here in Canada); there was a case where a person who knew Real Estate law quite well, and how to manipulate the system. This person changed the ownership title of people's homes to his own name and then had people evicted from their own homes. No contact was ever made between the victims and the perpetrator. The government said there were no laws broken so nothing can be done about it. (Sorry, I spent about half an hour trying to look for the specific story on Google and couldn't find anything. I do remember this distinctly though, and it was not too long ago either).
From the article:
Executives insisted they had not broken the law and said no 'personally identifiable information' had been shared or divulged. If in fact no laws have been broken, then the laws need to be changed (and made retro-active in this case) to punish and make an example of this type of behaviour. People need to be put in jail for this.
Average people I will allow some lenience towards. Leaders I have no sympathy for; they all too often make excuses for their behavior and have the power (lawyers, political, etc) to get away with it.
Ironic because "system" == "game"? The game in this case is the system, but more broadly it would be the Casino and it's practice of looking out for, and of banning card counters. These pros know it's a game (not just the Game of Blackjack), but a game of out-witting the house detectives. I don't see any redundancy here.
I will in fact "spell" it out to you. The irony lies in the term itself, and as it is applied here to card counters. The irony is also apparent in the fact that the casino's have already "gamed" the system against it's customers (from a profit perspective), especially considering that they can and will legally ban anybody whom they feel wins too much money.
The concept of "Gaming the system" is itself ironic (I hope I don't have to explain why):
Gaming the System means, simply, using the rules, policies and procedures of a system against itself for purposes outside what these rules were intended for. - http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Gaming_the_system
but also retarded as that's what you're supposed to do. Not according to the Casino's, because if they find you doing this they will ask you to leave. So that's why most people in Casino's don't do this, because they have already been banned or don't want to go through the effort.
And BTW, Blackjack is fun for most people; nothing really too mystical here for me when I play it (on rare occasions). Granted their are fools who may think otherwise and lose their lifesavings in turn.
... This allowed Microsoft to hire and keep some really talented coders and code managers... My guess is that the kind of coders that used to put in their 7 years at MS are now headed elsewhere, such as Google. And without that steady supply of top tier talent, MS can't innovate quickly. I have never applied for a job with Microsoft because I never thought I was good enough. Now that I hear that quality candidates are avoiding Microsoft for smaller fish, I am thinking about talking to a Microsoft recruiter. Since my coding skills are rather mediocre, I feel that I will now be a good fit as a Microsoft programmer. I'm certainly "Vista Capable" in terms of the quality of my coding skills.
I only hope I can get a job here in Canada so that I don't have to go through the hassles of applying for a Visa to work in the US or India (where most Microsoft jobs are located).
... what "terrorism" actually is appears to be a matter of some debate. Yes it should be a matter of debate. Although there are formal definitions, the media (and people in general) often use the word "terrorism" as a catch-all phrase without offering any definition. Unfortunately most people would not look up the UN definition of Terrorism when reading a news article, nor do political pundits really seem to care about such definitions except to imply that it is used against their political foes. I would suggest that the word "terrorism" is a Godwinesque colloquialism and should be avoided.
The problem with your thinking is that it seems to assume that children are just like adults... Many times, when people bring up the point of treating children with respect and intelligence somebody will inevitably say they are not just miniature adults.
Of course children are not adults, either physically, mentally, or experientially. Children are not idiots either, and neither should they be treated like retarded adults or like trained dogs. Children should not be leashed or fenced in like pets. Children are human and need to be treated individually based on their own personalities and intelligence. There is no catch-all parenting method or law that will make children safe, healthy, intelligent or socially upright. Simplistic solutions and ideals are often the worst because they undermine the complexity of the human mind.
Most importantly, the way children think changes fairly rapidly as they grow. How a child reacts to a naked tit, for example, completely changes from age 1 to school-age, and again in middle school, and once again at sexual maturity. A wise parent considers these changes, and does not try to use the same reasoning and the same solutions at all ages. You brought up "any good textbook on cognitive development" and then you made the above statement. I am no expert on cognitive development, but think it is more likely that the way a human views a human teat has more to do with their experiences and upbringing than with cognitive development. As for your mention of "solutions", you seem to be implying that there is a problem that needs to be solved (reguarding "a naked tit").
And, in recognition of the fact that children don't think the same way at the same age, society tends to say that certain experiences should be shoved into certain age ranges, when they are easiest to successfully understand and cope with (either for the child or for the adults around him). It's among our oldest traditions as a species... Yes, the problem is that people rely too much on tradition, and not enough on logic or intelligence.
And in your last paragraph in regards to teaching algebra too early: Nope, there is no "too early". If a child can't get it, then don't force it upon him and cause frustration. If a child can get it, and shows an interest and aptitude, then by all means teach it. The problem with Western educational systems is that they are largely not geared to the individual needs of a child, and so we see the success of home schooling. Anecdotally, I also did very poorly throughout school, but in my final year of high school I went to a special public high school (that only let in gifted students, and intellectual misfits like myself). The independent and non-structured studies allowed me to get University offers (and even an unsolicited scholarship offer). So yes children of all ages can succeed if we don't impose artificial barriers on their achievement. The funny thing is that I have never told my parents I went to an alternative school or that I received a scholarship offer. Perhaps they were reading too many Readers Digest articles on parenting, because I never did respect the simple solutions that were offered by these articles, nor the people naive enough to implement them.
So my educated (and non-expert opinion) sways me to put more emphasis on the arguments of the Parent poster than too your own. While I value cognitive development textbooks and all other tools of learning, I will not use them to merely promote my own belief systems.
Censorship is immoral. I have not viewed the film, nor do I plan to view the film; but I will make an effort to find and download this film. Censorship is IMMORAL!!!!!
I will do (nearly) anything to promote ANYTHING (in regards to visual, oral, or verbal representations) in regards to media that ANYBODY finds to be questionable, immoral, illegal, unethical, etc.)
Fight the good fight Slashdotters! Make an effort to download only things that are illegal!
You're either a government shill, or a nationalist of the worst sort. Since there is not an "agree" button, I will state emphatically that I agree with you. When Chinese issues come up, I always see the obvious and not so obvious Shills come out of the wood work.
if one were to call for a boycott on the grounds of China violating human rights, one should consider that there have been thousands of the usual executions and imprisonments since the games were awarded to China, and no one called for a boycott then. So, doing it now would put the human rights of the Tibetans above those of native Chinese... No, deciding that KILLING PEOPLE is not worth boycotting because nobody did this before is a very sorry and lame political excuse made by Politicians, Public Relations officials, Human Resource Management types, Sales people, and all the other ASSHOLES who think making a good argument is more important than admitting that KILLING PEOPLE is wrong.
Yes, you are interesting, but IMHO the moderators were too naive in up-modding you. I think you may be legitimate; but I think there may very well be a Chinese influence to your comment. I can't really know, but it always seems to be that with registered nicks, subtle criticisms always turn out to be Chinese Nationalism in disguise. Since you decided to post as AC, I cannot profile you. Too bad.
I said:
For China, unfortunately, I can only think that "terrorism" or a very unique and idealist type of over-throw at the top will change things. I will add my own opinion here: if "terrorism" is used for the right purposes, then I am in favour of it: whether it be Tibetan monks killing Chinese police or Palestinians killing Israeli "civilians" (in Israel you are in the army pretty much for your adult life).
So yes, label me a Troll, but it is my morality that you are moderating, if you do moderate me as a Troll.
By dealing with the Chinese, we get to understand them, and more importantly, they get to be exposed to, and start to understand and relate to us. These things take time, but by working together, I'm sure we'll find that as the Chinese govt. evolves (as it must due to death of current officials and leaders) the next generation will not be so hostile to the west, and even embrace more of our values. Once they are working on the same set of values then our arguments will make more sense to them. Just telling them to fuck off and not engaging will just reinforce the separation of our cultures. And seeing as how the Chinese pretty much own your asses, financially speaking, you shouldn't be picking a fight you haven't got the capability to win. Noble, and to an extent, you have a point. But the OLYMPICS is hardly a cultural ideal that can facilitate any reasonable type of cultural or political change. If that were the case the Chinese government would not have LOBBIED!! for the Olympics.
The asshats in power in China are quite aware of world opinion against them, and quite frankly they don't care. They know they have enough economic influence for countries like the US, etc. to only make symbolic gestures. Yes the business oriented asshats in the West will always be more concerned with economics than human rights. That's where China has the advantage: they have a HUGE population (both educated labour and cheap low cost labour), and the West realizes that China will exploit this to their advantage.
If pure Morality played a role in politics, then things may be different. Hey, when Rupert Murdoch said bad things about China; the Chinese government threatened to cut off it's satellite feeds. Since then, Rupert has been friendly towards the Chinese.
And yes I am a BIG fan of Capitalism, but I am against the "I will sell you a rope that will hang me" bullshit that most Capitalists will inevitably do.
Cultural exchanges ARE important, but right now the Chinese ARE exposed to Western culture. The Chinese government has been devious in the respect that they have allowed enough capitalism to create a comfortable middle class (that is, enough people to be comfortable with the current situation and not "rock the boat").
For China, unfortunately, I can only think that "terrorism" or a very unique and idealist type of over-throw at the top will change things.
Since when where athletes too greedy to think for themselves? If athletes don't speak out, it will because of some threat over their career, I'm sure athletes can and do think for themselves. The point being that athletes (and lets face it people in general are more concerned about their own issues than some foreign policy stance). As for any threats to their career; yes, (I am being presumptuous here; meaning I cannot speak for ALL Olympians or their ideals and goals, but...) if an athlete thinks a company would be less likely to sponsor an athlete who speaks out on political issues, then that athlete would be less likely to cause controversy. However real that may be, I am sure there is a perception amongst athletes that there could be an economic backlash. As an example, there were a few athletes who admitted to being homosexual, but they only became open about this AFTER their Olympic careers. Nope, I'm not really talking about athletes, but people in general. Olympians sacrifice quite a lot of time and money (opportunity costs, if you will), to get where they are. I don't think many would be interested in any potential sacrifice of their goals of being a star athlete. Politics is a diversion to high performance athletes. I'm thinking of such fanatical statements I've heard in the past by Olympians like "No pain, no Spain"; and that young American gymnast who sacrificed her health by performing with a broken leg; and was later applauded for her "heroism", and had her picture put on the Wheaties cereal box container.
I said:
The poster was specifically talking about athletes This was a mistake. My enthusiasm to post sometimes outweighs my diligence in checking the accuracy of what I post. My apologies. Otherwise my post should be taken as is.
yeah Olympics is the "legitimate" excuse to put pressure on China by US who itself is involved in killing of thousands of people. *Sarcasm* The Olympics is an international organization, and not a US organization. The poster was specifically talking about athletes, and not the asshat governments and bureaucrats who have their own motives.
Yes the US government often is and can be an asshat in itself, but there is a level of difference between the US and China. I am glad to criticize the US, but I am also willing to have perspective.
I do, however, hope that western athletes will use the Olympics as a forum discussing this, e.g. publicly asking why there are no teams representing Tibet and Taiwan. Idealistic, and unrealistic. Olympic athletes are interested in careers, sponsorship endorsements etc... and NOT politics.
I remember when Canadian Olympians were invited by the Japanese government to go to schools in Japan. There was an incredible lack of enthusiasm. These athletes would rather be training than wasting their time on politics; much less a political stance that most countries, businesses, and people could really care less about. Money talks, and there is not a lot of money for supporting an underdog political policy like Tibetan freedom or independence.
Me personally, I would love to see a boycott of the Chinese Olympics. Realistically, China should not have even been a contender; but the Olympics has always had more to do with money and prestige than helping to promote sports and fitness, as the Public Relations types always claim.
Give me their links and I will click on them. I will gain satisfaction that they are spending enormous amounts of time and energy wasting YOUR public tax dollars. Yeah, and I'll also use my skills to setup proxies on unsuspecting police prospects. No this is not immoral to have an innocent family raided by the police; it is EDUCATIONAL (for that family to realize what type of police state we live in).
I will say this with all due sincerity (and without trying to sound Troll-ish): "Fuck off!". It should be noted that the police are the asshats here because they are specifically Trolling for victims. Yes there are assumptions involved, and my anger at this type of criminal abuse of the Police system makes me want to leave the reader to Think, rather than to give a typical reply (implying that I am a pedophile, as most AC posters and right-wing fucktards inevitably accuse me of being).
The day that clicking on a LINK!!!! is subject to a raid on somebody's home is the day when I lose ALL respect for any type of police authority. It smacks of arrogance, ignorance, callousness, and down-right abuse of that authority.
My ideals say we should respect authority. My experience says we should try to subvert authority and kick it in the ass.
Now I am going to suggest something that most people want to ignore, look at the countries on the lists with a low per capita rating and think about the standard of living compared to the higher ones. My first response when people bring up the "standard of living" argument is to say to myself "yeah so what. Who cares? What's the point of bringing this up?" Standard-of-living is a nice statistical tool for economists, but is too general and brings up Western (financial) market biases. Since SoL is based on goods and services consumed, it's inaccuracy at measuring quality of life is seen since it is based on Gross Domestic Product; for example spending on man-made disasters and natural disasters will create a higher Standard of Living for the US (i.e. spending on Iraq, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, federal prisons, etc). Note that Standard of Living does not measure (what I call the "happiness factor", and others call "quality of life" factors), but instead rather inaccurately measures wealth, as you glibly seem to undermine.
From Wikipedia: "The standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services available to people, and the way these goods and services are distributed within a population." And Standard of Living is a per capita measure (as you called it "per capita BS"). For example, SoL does not take into account whether a person owns their means of production (like peasant farmers), or whether a person has to do monotonous work in a dark factory all day with supervisors and Bean Counters looking over their shoulder's so that they can afford to use a car to take them to work. I'm sure the SoL would be rather low for Quakers and Mennonites, but Quality of Life (the happiness factor again) would be higher. Living in "poverty" for some people is an ideal. Which brings up another point.
Poverty is also a highly political term, and has everything to do with comparative wealth, and not with the general wealth of a nation. A person living in poverty in the US is different from a person living in poverty in India. And a person living underneath the unofficial poverty line in Canada is different from that in the US and other countries. I remember at one time in Canada the politicians decreased it's unofficial poverty line because of lobbying from the business sector (ref: http://www.ccsd.ca/pr/lico00aj.htm [Note that this article does not discuss the politics, just the statistical change used by Statistics Canada]).
Your comment inspired me to do a bit of Googling. Though I have not answered your question (completely), I did come up with some interesting information on NCMEC. From the Web site http://missingchildrenblog.com/category/ncmec/:
They get around 40 million dollars per year in funding from the US Government and to convince people that those tax dollars are well spent the NCMEC spends more than a million of that on public relations. We could run a search team that responds to every single stranger abduction in this country for the amount of money they spend on public relations, yet they refuse to fund that effort, even though we have proved that it gets results. And it goes on about how NCMEC implicates itself with success stories that they had little or no involvement in.
From Wikipedia (you can search for NCMEC and also John Walsh):
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a private, non-profit organization - One of it's creators and major supporters is John Walsh (hardly an unbiased person, though for obvious reasons) - It is primarily funded by The US Justice Department
So based on this bit of information, I think it is likely that there is some truth to the statement:
NCMEC is in all likelihood run and supported by right wing social conservatives
Actually they're in far, far more danger from pederasts and other dangers on the streets than they are on the internet. I've never heard of pederasts walking around the streets approaching young boys for sex (I'm sure it happens, just as I'm sure there are people who walk around in rain coats flashing people for fun and excitement), but there is more FUD in your statement than reality.
I do believe the perceived anonymity of the Internet would make it easier for a pederast to approach and talk to young boys, and for this reason it is easier to convince a naive public that the Internet is inherently dangerous. FUD goes both ways here. The Internet to most people is a rather mysterious place because people don't know the technicalities of how it works, and what they do hear is from the major news outlets and is often sensationalistic and fear-mongering in nature. I'm often bemused at how quickly and easily people are able to jump to conclusions without, at the very least, using critical thinking skills, and at the most actually trying to look up and evaluate some primary sources for any scientific sounding statements they come across. Granted, I myself often don't have the time or incentive to do the latter, so I always try to maintain a healthy skepticism until such evidence can be proven. I wish others would do the same.
Well, at least there's no danger of it being enforced, since it is OBVIOUSLY overbroad... Most people would put their tail between their legs at a threatening letter sent by a law firm; no lawsuit required, the enforcement is de facto.
In Firefox, when I attempt to go to www.shareaza.com I get this message:
This page has been reported as a web forgery designed to trick users into sharing personal or financial information. Entering any personal information on this page may result in identity theft or other fraud.
These types of web forgeries are used in scams known as phishing attacks, in which fraudulent web pages and emails are used to imitate sources you may trust. You can find out more about how Firefox protects you from phishing attacks.
Neither Opera nor Internet Explorer (with the IE Phishing filter enabled) brings up any such messages.
You CAN however report this Website as a phishing site in IE; Go to: Tools | Phishing Filter | Report this site.
In Canada the government doesn't actually run the health care system. The federal government allocates health care money to the provinces, and the provinces allocate it to hospitals, doctors, etc. So for example, if a doctor sees a patient for an annual checkup, the doctor will bill the province for the money. The government just supplies the money.
Slashdot Mirror
I said: Average people I will allow some lenience towards. Leaders I have no sympathy for... This is really what I was implying in my original post. Punishing those people who should know better, and more specifically those people who have the power to get away with it. For the average citizen, I would agree; retro-active laws are hardly the place. Also, as I have stated, such practices should be taken with great care ("checks and balances", as the US Constitution was apparently based on [in part, at least]).
Also, a correction; I said: I would never suggest such legislation should not be easy to create... I meant to say:
"I would never suggest such legislation should be easy to create...
If it is in fact bad (precedence, etc) to make a law retro-active, then I would suggest that there should be a law that would prevent this from happening (which in many countries there are). The precedence (in the case where there are no retro-active laws in place) is de facto since anybody can arbitrarily make laws retro-active without legislation stating that they can't.
In many cases, there may be positive effects to retro-active legislation; like when a person is convicted of murder when the death penalty is in place, and afterwards the death penalty is repealed. I'm thinking more specifically of the very many cases that came to light through campaigns like the Innocent Project. Granted, I realize you emphasized "punishment" in your argument.
I would never suggest such legislation should not be easy to create, but I will never say never. In extreme cases of abuse, then extreme measures should be taken IMHO. Spyware distribution is perhaps not an extreme case.
Best regards,
UTW
I was thinking about the possible consequences and the precedence this would set (more so after I posted). I was actually anticipating a rebuttal). Perhaps you should think of my post more as a modest proposal.
I do remember reading in the local paper many, many years ago about a lawsuit in which the city (of Toronto, or perhaps one of the boroughs of Toronto) had a problem with a citizen's porch (my memory of the details are vague). The case went to court and the home owner won. The city was not happy with this so they changed the law and then brought the bylaw enforcement officer on her again. In the end the home owner ended up losing her house (mainly because of the court fees, fines, etc that all added up). This is not an example of establishing a retro-active law, but the principle of arbitrarily changing a law to suit your needs is demonstrated here.
I think making a law retro-active does have its applications however. For example, when there is an obvious case of "abuse" (and there are no existing laws, or there are loop-holes to allow for exploitation). I'm thinking of another example (here in Canada); there was a case where a person who knew Real Estate law quite well, and how to manipulate the system. This person changed the ownership title of people's homes to his own name and then had people evicted from their own homes. No contact was ever made between the victims and the perpetrator. The government said there were no laws broken so nothing can be done about it. (Sorry, I spent about half an hour trying to look for the specific story on Google and couldn't find anything. I do remember this distinctly though, and it was not too long ago either).
Average people I will allow some lenience towards. Leaders I have no sympathy for; they all too often make excuses for their behavior and have the power (lawyers, political, etc) to get away with it.
I will in fact "spell" it out to you. The irony lies in the term itself, and as it is applied here to card counters. The irony is also apparent in the fact that the casino's have already "gamed" the system against it's customers (from a profit perspective), especially considering that they can and will legally ban anybody whom they feel wins too much money.
The concept of "Gaming the system" is itself ironic (I hope I don't have to explain why): Gaming the System means, simply, using the rules, policies and procedures of a system against itself for purposes outside what these rules were intended for. - http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Gaming_the_system but also retarded as that's what you're supposed to do. Not according to the Casino's, because if they find you doing this they will ask you to leave. So that's why most people in Casino's don't do this, because they have already been banned or don't want to go through the effort.
And BTW, Blackjack is fun for most people; nothing really too mystical here for me when I play it (on rare occasions). Granted their are fools who may think otherwise and lose their lifesavings in turn.
... This allowed Microsoft to hire and keep some really talented coders and code managers... My guess is that the kind of coders that used to put in their 7 years at MS are now headed elsewhere, such as Google. And without that steady supply of top tier talent, MS can't innovate quickly. I have never applied for a job with Microsoft because I never thought I was good enough. Now that I hear that quality candidates are avoiding Microsoft for smaller fish, I am thinking about talking to a Microsoft recruiter. Since my coding skills are rather mediocre, I feel that I will now be a good fit as a Microsoft programmer. I'm certainly "Vista Capable" in terms of the quality of my coding skills.I only hope I can get a job here in Canada so that I don't have to go through the hassles of applying for a Visa to work in the US or India (where most Microsoft jobs are located).
... what "terrorism" actually is appears to be a matter of some debate. Yes it should be a matter of debate. Although there are formal definitions, the media (and people in general) often use the word "terrorism" as a catch-all phrase without offering any definition. Unfortunately most people would not look up the UN definition of Terrorism when reading a news article, nor do political pundits really seem to care about such definitions except to imply that it is used against their political foes. I would suggest that the word "terrorism" is a Godwinesque colloquialism and should be avoided.Of course children are not adults, either physically, mentally, or experientially. Children are not idiots either, and neither should they be treated like retarded adults or like trained dogs. Children should not be leashed or fenced in like pets. Children are human and need to be treated individually based on their own personalities and intelligence. There is no catch-all parenting method or law that will make children safe, healthy, intelligent or socially upright. Simplistic solutions and ideals are often the worst because they undermine the complexity of the human mind. Most importantly, the way children think changes fairly rapidly as they grow. How a child reacts to a naked tit, for example, completely changes from age 1 to school-age, and again in middle school, and once again at sexual maturity. A wise parent considers these changes, and does not try to use the same reasoning and the same solutions at all ages. You brought up "any good textbook on cognitive development" and then you made the above statement. I am no expert on cognitive development, but think it is more likely that the way a human views a human teat has more to do with their experiences and upbringing than with cognitive development. As for your mention of "solutions", you seem to be implying that there is a problem that needs to be solved (reguarding "a naked tit"). And, in recognition of the fact that children don't think the same way at the same age, society tends to say that certain experiences should be shoved into certain age ranges, when they are easiest to successfully understand and cope with (either for the child or for the adults around him). It's among our oldest traditions as a species... Yes, the problem is that people rely too much on tradition, and not enough on logic or intelligence.
And in your last paragraph in regards to teaching algebra too early:
Nope, there is no "too early". If a child can't get it, then don't force it upon him and cause frustration. If a child can get it, and shows an interest and aptitude, then by all means teach it. The problem with Western educational systems is that they are largely not geared to the individual needs of a child, and so we see the success of home schooling. Anecdotally, I also did very poorly throughout school, but in my final year of high school I went to a special public high school (that only let in gifted students, and intellectual misfits like myself). The independent and non-structured studies allowed me to get University offers (and even an unsolicited scholarship offer). So yes children of all ages can succeed if we don't impose artificial barriers on their achievement. The funny thing is that I have never told my parents I went to an alternative school or that I received a scholarship offer. Perhaps they were reading too many Readers Digest articles on parenting, because I never did respect the simple solutions that were offered by these articles, nor the people naive enough to implement them.
So my educated (and non-expert opinion) sways me to put more emphasis on the arguments of the Parent poster than too your own. While I value cognitive development textbooks and all other tools of learning, I will not use them to merely promote my own belief systems.
Censorship is immoral. I have not viewed the film, nor do I plan to view the film; but I will make an effort to find and download this film. Censorship is IMMORAL!!!!!
I will do (nearly) anything to promote ANYTHING (in regards to visual, oral, or verbal representations) in regards to media that ANYBODY finds to be questionable, immoral, illegal, unethical, etc.)
Fight the good fight Slashdotters! Make an effort to download only things that are illegal!
Yes, you are interesting, but IMHO the moderators were too naive in up-modding you. I think you may be legitimate; but I think there may very well be a Chinese influence to your comment. I can't really know, but it always seems to be that with registered nicks, subtle criticisms always turn out to be Chinese Nationalism in disguise. Since you decided to post as AC, I cannot profile you. Too bad.
So yes, label me a Troll, but it is my morality that you are moderating, if you do moderate me as a Troll.
Just telling them to fuck off and not engaging will just reinforce the separation of our cultures. And seeing as how the Chinese pretty much own your asses, financially speaking, you shouldn't be picking a fight you haven't got the capability to win. Noble, and to an extent, you have a point. But the OLYMPICS is hardly a cultural ideal that can facilitate any reasonable type of cultural or political change. If that were the case the Chinese government would not have LOBBIED!! for the Olympics.
The asshats in power in China are quite aware of world opinion against them, and quite frankly they don't care. They know they have enough economic influence for countries like the US, etc. to only make symbolic gestures. Yes the business oriented asshats in the West will always be more concerned with economics than human rights. That's where China has the advantage: they have a HUGE population (both educated labour and cheap low cost labour), and the West realizes that China will exploit this to their advantage.
If pure Morality played a role in politics, then things may be different. Hey, when Rupert Murdoch said bad things about China; the Chinese government threatened to cut off it's satellite feeds. Since then, Rupert has been friendly towards the Chinese.
And yes I am a BIG fan of Capitalism, but I am against the "I will sell you a rope that will hang me" bullshit that most Capitalists will inevitably do.
Cultural exchanges ARE important, but right now the Chinese ARE exposed to Western culture. The Chinese government has been devious in the respect that they have allowed enough capitalism to create a comfortable middle class (that is, enough people to be comfortable with the current situation and not "rock the boat").
For China, unfortunately, I can only think that "terrorism" or a very unique and idealist type of over-throw at the top will change things.
Yes the US government often is and can be an asshat in itself, but there is a level of difference between the US and China. I am glad to criticize the US, but I am also willing to have perspective.
I remember when Canadian Olympians were invited by the Japanese government to go to schools in Japan. There was an incredible lack of enthusiasm. These athletes would rather be training than wasting their time on politics; much less a political stance that most countries, businesses, and people could really care less about. Money talks, and there is not a lot of money for supporting an underdog political policy like Tibetan freedom or independence.
Me personally, I would love to see a boycott of the Chinese Olympics. Realistically, China should not have even been a contender; but the Olympics has always had more to do with money and prestige than helping to promote sports and fitness, as the Public Relations types always claim.
Give me their links and I will click on them. I will gain satisfaction that they are spending enormous amounts of time and energy wasting YOUR public tax dollars. Yeah, and I'll also use my skills to setup proxies on unsuspecting police prospects. No this is not immoral to have an innocent family raided by the police; it is EDUCATIONAL (for that family to realize what type of police state we live in).
I will say this with all due sincerity (and without trying to sound Troll-ish):
"Fuck off!". It should be noted that the police are the asshats here because they are specifically Trolling for victims. Yes there are assumptions involved, and my anger at this type of criminal abuse of the Police system makes me want to leave the reader to Think, rather than to give a typical reply (implying that I am a pedophile, as most AC posters and right-wing fucktards inevitably accuse me of being).
The day that clicking on a LINK!!!! is subject to a raid on somebody's home is the day when I lose ALL respect for any type of police authority. It smacks of arrogance, ignorance, callousness, and down-right abuse of that authority.
My ideals say we should respect authority. My experience says we should try to subvert authority and kick it in the ass.
From Wikipedia: "The standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services available to people, and the way these goods and services are distributed within a population." And Standard of Living is a per capita measure (as you called it "per capita BS"). For example, SoL does not take into account whether a person owns their means of production (like peasant farmers), or whether a person has to do monotonous work in a dark factory all day with supervisors and Bean Counters looking over their shoulder's so that they can afford to use a car to take them to work. I'm sure the SoL would be rather low for Quakers and Mennonites, but Quality of Life (the happiness factor again) would be higher. Living in "poverty" for some people is an ideal. Which brings up another point.
Poverty is also a highly political term, and has everything to do with comparative wealth, and not with the general wealth of a nation. A person living in poverty in the US is different from a person living in poverty in India. And a person living underneath the unofficial poverty line in Canada is different from that in the US and other countries. I remember at one time in Canada the politicians decreased it's unofficial poverty line because of lobbying from the business sector (ref: http://www.ccsd.ca/pr/lico00aj.htm [Note that this article does not discuss the politics, just the statistical change used by Statistics Canada]).
From Wikipedia (you can search for NCMEC and also John Walsh): The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a private, non-profit organization - One of it's creators and major supporters is John Walsh (hardly an unbiased person, though for obvious reasons)
- It is primarily funded by The US Justice Department
So based on this bit of information, I think it is likely that there is some truth to the statement: NCMEC is in all likelihood run and supported by right wing social conservatives
I do believe the perceived anonymity of the Internet would make it easier for a pederast to approach and talk to young boys, and for this reason it is easier to convince a naive public that the Internet is inherently dangerous. FUD goes both ways here. The Internet to most people is a rather mysterious place because people don't know the technicalities of how it works, and what they do hear is from the major news outlets and is often sensationalistic and fear-mongering in nature. I'm often bemused at how quickly and easily people are able to jump to conclusions without, at the very least, using critical thinking skills, and at the most actually trying to look up and evaluate some primary sources for any scientific sounding statements they come across. Granted, I myself often don't have the time or incentive to do the latter, so I always try to maintain a healthy skepticism until such evidence can be proven. I wish others would do the same.
Neither Opera nor Internet Explorer (with the IE Phishing filter enabled) brings up any such messages.
You CAN however report this Website as a phishing site in IE;
Go to:
Tools | Phishing Filter | Report this site.
In Canada the government doesn't actually run the health care system. The federal government allocates health care money to the provinces, and the provinces allocate it to hospitals, doctors, etc. So for example, if a doctor sees a patient for an annual checkup, the doctor will bill the province for the money. The government just supplies the money.