One could use the analogy of buying a car, (which seems to be less abstract for people to understand) . Two people buy the same car. One person drives it only on the weekends, one person drives it everyday. The car costs the same amount of money. One could ask is this fair? Maybe not, but how one decides to use their vehicle is up to them. If they didn't want to take full advantage of their car and the freeways, then they could take public transit (i.e. dial-up Internet), or they could just buy a cheaper car or a bike (i.e. slow speed DSL). Chances are the people buying the sports cars are paying premium because they want to drive fast and take advantage of the features. If you don't want the features don't pay for them. And if there are too many cars on the road, then just widen the road.
Mark Cuban is talking about corporate broadcasters using P2P bandwidth. One would hope these corporations pay the artists what they deserve for their hard work. Yes group-think does suck, especially when you are on the wrong side of it.
Some facts: Real fans pay for music. Poor fans won't pay for music whether it is easily available or not. And if there wasn't any demand, then there wouldn't be any supply. The market will work itself out despite DRM and the like.
I find it ironic that I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes about copyright abuses and yet points to a Web site whose coalition includes the MPAA, among others. Ironic and self-defeating it seems, you silly copyright zealots!
I will leave with one last post to this thread. You may have the last word if you like. I do disagree with many things you say, and find many of your comments inappropriate and unfair to say the least, so below I have listed my rebuttals.
As for wanting your children to feel a certain way based on what you consider good or bad behaviour is also bizarre and manipulative. Playing mind games with your children's feelings is wrong.
What mind games? What in the world are you talking about? Since when does "unconditional approval" equate to "respect". True respect to a child involves teaching right and wrong, not patting them on the head whether they are curing cancer or massacring a village.
Expecting to get an emotional response from a child based on a psychological form of conditioning is IMHO playing mind games. It reminds me of some of my bosses at various jobs. Instead of just telling people to change what they are doing, they make people feel guilty. From your original post:
and far as feelings go, if my children do something bad or stupid, they _should_ feel bad, and when they do something good, they should feel good
Any respectable psychologist will tell you that children should have unconditional love. But I could only presume that you would think that any form of Social Science would be considered too "Liberal" for your belief system, and therefore devoid of consideration. I have NEVER said that children should have unconditional approval for any or all behaviour. You made that up.
I've tried to be patient with you, but this statement shows me you are completely out of touch with reality. You sound like one of those liberal idiots (i.e., not all liberals are idiots, which is why I qualified it) who think children should be treated like miniature adults and left to make their own choices, whether they are good or they are stupid, and since children are, by definition, incapable of making good choices, they will inevitably do stupid things. If that weren't true, we would allow them to enter into binding contracts and other adult relationships.
What you think I sound like is irrelevant. The more you talk (argue) the more your prejudices emerge. I have never said children should not have guidance or that they should do whatever they want. You are making this up and perverting the argument.
children are, by definition, incapable of making good choices
You are making things up as you go along. Children often make good choices, you alluded to this in your previous post. Of course children can also make bad choices as well. An intelligent guardian and mentor would certainly be beneficial, but good role models are often hard to come by. Being a parent in itself involves no inherent moral superiority.
there is objective good and objective evil, something you don't seem to believe.
I know something about good and evil, and that it is based on people's opinions, aside from that their is Nature, and the natural world does what it does without worrying about labels. This topic is more complex than you may think. I will not go there.
no one should feel good about doing wrong.
I agree.
I am not "manipulating" my kids
This may not be the case. Based on what you said in the previous post it sounded like it. One could presume that there would always be at least some form of manipulation in an authority / subordinate role (i.e. parent / child).
I do not "publicize" everything my kids do. All I ever said was that I talk about them,...
I need not even bother to comment. Your words speak for themselves.
and that it is bizarre, unrealistic, and in fact downright dangerous if everything I do as a parent results in good feeling from my children. That's how you raise an ego-centric idiot with no concept of other people and an unlimi
First things first. This is the real world. Their is no alternate bizzaro universe to go to, no matter how much television you may watch. People who use "Real World" arguments do so because they don't have any rational arguments to make.
Your points are not unreasonable but they sound a little close to the kinds of attitudes that are turning so many of our children into emotional cripples full of hollow self-esteem that will fall to pieces in the real world and end up living in their parents' basement until they are 40 because they don't know how to deal with competition or legitimate criticism, leave alone the kind of criticism you get in the Real World, especially in places like/.
Having respect for somebody does not turn somebody into an "emotional cripple" who has "hollow self-esteem". I have noticed throughout my life (that children with bad parents) will either be dumb enough to grow up to be like their parents, or smart enough to reject them. As for my argument, it is just as pertinent for adults as it is with children. Adults can be asshats towards other adults as well. I do not expect people to change. I am merely pointing out bad behavior. If you choose to be rude that is your business. Unfortunately children do not have a choice of choosing their parents.
I don't need to get my children's permission to talk about them, whether it's with a neighbor or online,
True, you need NOBODY's permission to talk about your children. It is however disturbing that you seem to have a compulsion to talk about your children, whether it be with your neighbour or online.
and far as feelings go, if my children do something bad or stupid, they _should_ feel bad, and when they do something good, they should feel good, and that's exactly the kind of feedback they get from me.
If (you think) your children do something bad, then their is no need to publicize it to your neighbour's or online to the world. This is not only rude behavior but it is psychotic behaviour. Reference psychotic: lack of empathy and self-centredness. As for wanting your children to feel a certain way based on what you consider good or bad behaviour is also bizarre and manipulative. Playing mind games with your children's feelings is wrong.
And you know what's funny? When they recognize do something bad, they feel bad. When they recognize they do something good, they feel good. Guess what they're more likely to do?
Again, publicizing this "bad" and "good" behaviour to the world is just plain bizarre. I hope your children are intelligent enough to realize this. Though the sad thing is that children tend to grow up just as rude and psychotic as their parents. Yes parents are a major influence on their children, whether it be good or bad.
You see, my superior judgment as an adult takes precedence over their inferior judgment as children. They are going to have to trust me. They have no choice. And neither do you.
Your poor arguments in favour of rude behavior and disrespect for children prove that you do not have "superior judgment as an adult"
They are going to have to trust me. They have no choice. And neither do you.
This is only partially correct. Your children may not have a choice, but I do. You have proven yourself untrustworthy to me. I have no trust in you whatsoever.
Regardless of what I may or may not be doing right, they are turning out to have a strong moral grounding (e.g., recognizing what's right and wrong sometimes in ways they are beyond their ages)
Most people who talk about morals don't have any. Reference the Church and the State under GWB. Although hypocrisy is rampant.
and when I come home from work, all 4 of them, ages 7 to 13 run out to welcome me home with hugs and cheers
I'm wandering what would happen if they didn't do this. Don't bother answering, it's a rhet
"Writing about" is not the same as "gossip". What makes you think it is? The medium is besides the point. It is all verbal communication. The outcome is the same. "Gossip" does not necessarily imply malicious intent, however it can invade people's privacy.
I write about my kids. Anything I write is a fair and accurate description that does not try to portray them in a poor light. It's certainly good that you do not try to portray your kids in a bad light; however a writer's intentions may not always reflect the opinions of their children. For example, a person may not think that talking about a child's bowel movements may not be malicious, but that child may not think that is "fair" or appropriate. Talking about a child's romantic crushes or their love of some unpopular musical style may also not be in the child's best interests, however "fair" the author may think he / she is trying to be. These are just a couple of an infinite amount of examples I could use.
If they dislike it now or later, that's their problem, not mine. I agree that it is their problem, and they will have to deal with it. That's also a rather callous way of thinking about your children. If you don't care about the feelings of your children then you shouldn't be a parent IMHO.
I will state that if a person (whether it be you or Wil Wheaton) writes about their kids, then they should discuss this with their children first and get their permission. Otherwise it is just gossip, whether it be written or oral in nature. If one wants to talk about their kids while at the same time protecting their anonymity, then this would be acceptable to me.
People should have etiquette and show respect for their children. In respects to the original poster:
What's so problematic about discussing your children on the internet? Everyone with kids does it. I stand by what I have said all along, and I have answered the question (whether people agree or disagree with the answer). I hope I have elaborated appropriately on the premise that "Because the kids may not like that, either now or in the future." I certainly hope you do think about your children's feelings when you talk or write about them, and keep an open (and open-minded) dialogue with them.
Because the kids may not like that, either now or in the future.
So what? You must not be a parent.
It is irrelevant whether I am a parent or not. One thing that should be obvious though is that I was a child, and I never liked it when my parents gossiped about me. I presume that you are making this statement because you are a parent who likes to gossip about their kids, or perhaps just hear gossip from other parents. It's normal for people who engage in bad behaviour to be defensive about their own actions.
talking about does not equal Gossip. Gossip (from WordWeb):
1 . Light informal conversation for social occasions 2. A report (often malicious) about the behaviour of other people "the divorce caused much gossip" 3. A person given to gossiping and divulging personal information about others
Parents have always talked about there kids, this just happens to be a new medium. As I've said, popular behaviour does not make it right. (And yes BTW, I expected to be modded down for this rather unpopular statement). But sometimes things need to be said despite the popular consensus.
DO you thinking people raise kids in a bubble? do you think parent know everything about raising kids? How do you think parent get advice from more experienced parents? Getting advice from people and gossiping are too different things. Getting advice from other parents is rather dubious unless they have a degree in Child Psychology or Early Childhood Education or something similar. If you are getting advice from somebody who believes it's OK to smack children around, for example, then you are probably getting advice from the wrong people.
As for Wil's book, I shall not comment on it since I have not read it. So do not necessarily take this as a slight to the book. I was merely replying to the original statement.
One of the things I've always admired about his writing is his willingness to talk about his kids. On the internet. With... people. Despite the obvious problems that could cause,...
Am I missing something? What's so problematic about discussing your children on the internet? Everyone with kids does it.
Because the kids may not like that, either now or in the future. Although I do have a feeling that most parents would not want there children discussing them on the Internet. The idea that you can do something bad just because everybody else does it is a common belief, but that does not make it correct. I would rather have parents discussing how they can protect their children's privacy, rather than have them violate that privacy. Gossip is something that I have always frowned upon, especially when it is done by family members.
That reminds me of a quote I saw on slashdot once. I Googled for it and was lucky enough to find it elsewhere http://www.armoredpenguin.com/quotes/Larry_Wall_Perl.html:
Q. Why is this so clumsy? A. The trick is to use Perl's strengths rather than its weaknesses.
--- Larry Wall in 8225@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV The same can be said of OSS or anything for that matter. For SourceForge you may want to use the advanced search http://sourceforge.net/search/, and specifically use the "activity" fields to narrow down your search.
If you have javascript enabled then the easiest thing to do would be to press the filter button on the search results page and make sure projects without files are not listed. Remember to press the "Apply" buttom.
Here is a more comprehensive listing (than the cnet list) of open source software and their proprietary counterparts: Open Source Alternative http://www.osalt.com/
Pricelessware is a fairly good resource for finding free software in general (lot's of propriatary freeware) http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/
freshmeat gets updated daily with lots of OSS. Though it has a Linux bias, there is a LOT of cross platform software available http://freshmeat.net/
SourceForge seems to be updating its list daily now as well. The front page listings are much smaller than freshmeat however http://sourceforge.net/
When deciding on what OSS to use, I often check the start date of the project and see if it is still actively being developed. The age of a project and developer involvement is a fairly good indicator of the quality of the software (i.e. you know bugs are constantly being fixed, and improvements made). There is no real reason for me to even think of buying most proprietary software much less downloading warez. There is still a lack of quality OSS games compared to the commercial market, but even this is changing (slowly). I'm still waiting for some of the more advanced and interesting looking games to get out of Alfa or beta stage.
Re:Princeton Libraries are NOT FREE.
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
Not true. From your own links, the libraries are open to local residents (i.e. non-students) at USD 300 per year I think he makes a valid point though. These books certainly wouldn't be available to the curious or the scientifically inclined who are not students, among others. Even $300 dollars a year is a bit steep IMHO. Therefore his original statement "Princeton Libraries are NOT FREE." is true.
I've noticed in many universities (in Canada at least), libraries are pretty much open access (no ID card required), save for the major U of T Library (the Robarts Research Library). If one could gain access to the Princeton libraries without an ID card then they would certainly be free for locals who don't want or need to sign anything out.
These cartoons were fine when we were kids and we turned as normal as our parents, if not moreso. Speak for yourself. Again people on Slashdot making statements without any evidence. I've never met anyone over 18 who is normal. Don't you watch the News? You must be N3w around here.
bloggers aren't exactly known for thoroughly checking out sources or even having a full grasp of the issue. One of the reasons I have NEVER had a blog or a public Web site. I just never found the time to research anything enough to be worthy of "publication". Either I'm too much of an idealist / perfectionist, or I'm just a slack ass:P
My view is that people simplify things too much (on either side of ANY argument). Reality is far more complex than most people IMHO seem to realize. Considering the fact that professional journalists often have less than a day to print a story, I wouldn't put too much credence in them either. I find professionals are often not always capital P Professional, but that often has a lot to do with pressures placed on them by management.
BTW I just visited your talk page on Wikipedia. Sorry to see you go. I've never personally followed you (or anyone) on Wikipedia. I just read the articles as my curiosity becomes aroused:) I was actually thinking about becoming a member of WikiPedia myself. I never thought I had the expertise enough, but after hearing peoples arguments (on Slashdot) about students being assigned WikiPedia articles to write, I figured maybe I could get involved. I certainly like researching, and I'm already used to a lot of scrutiny on Slashdot:)
What happens when the bloggers get it wrong? If you are talking of slander, defamation, libel, etc then there are laws against that (these laws favour the rich, but that is another problem with America et al). If a blogger makes an honest mistake, then they should publicly retract that mistake and apologize. Bloggers nor journalists should be involved in vigilantism. Journalists (amateur or otherwise) should just print the news, and should not tell people what to do with that news (i.e. form a lynch mob, etc).
If some controversial issue comes up, it is usually better to get ALL the information out and let people deal with it. If we live in a society where we can't trust ourselves to process information intelligently and without being irrational, then we need to try our hardest to change that society. Shooting the messenger does not solve the underlying problem.
By all means report that "the mother of one of the girl's friends" has been accused of this, but personally identifying information should rightly be prevented from being published in any medium whether it be a newspaper or a blog until the accusation has been found to be true. It has been found to be true (not be a court of law however, but most "truths" are not tested in a court of law). And since there seems a reluctance for the police to press charges then these facts would likely not come out otherwise:
In reference to their daughter's suicide, Drew explaind she wanted to "just tell them" what she did to contribute to the Meier's daughter's suicide. She instigated and monitored a "my space" account(---blurred) which was created for the sole purpose of communicating with Meier's daughter. Drew said she, with the help of temporary empoyee named "Ashley", constructed a profile of "good looking" male on "my space" in order to "find out what Megan (Meier's daughter) was saying on-line" about her daughter. Drew explained the communication between the fake male profile was [?aimed? illeg] at gaining Megan's confidence and finding out what Megan felt about her daughter and other people. Drew stated she, her daughter, and Ashley all typed, read, and monitored the communication between the fake male profile and Megan. Drew went on to say, the communication became "sexual for a thirteen year old." Drew stated she continued the fake male profile despite this development.
According to Drew "somehow" other "my space" users were able to access the fake male profile and Megan found out she had been duped. Drew stated she knew "arguments" had broken out between Megan and others on "my space". Drew felt this incident contributed to Megan's suicide, but she did not feel "as guilty" because at the funeral because she found out "Megan had tried to commit suicide before."
Drew explained the neighborhood had recently found out her involvement in Megan's suicide and her neighbord have become hostile to toward her and her family. Despite the recency of the suicide and several neighbors recommending she not confront the Meier family (especially on Thanksgiving), Meier stated she and her husband attempted to contact the Meier family three times, "banging on the door" although Mr Meier had already told them to leave.
I want the accusers name made public and the defense held secret until proven guilty. You won't find too many rape victims willing to press charges if there is an inherent bias in the system.
Right on. That's basically what I have been arguing. You seem to be one of the few people here (so far) who really seems to be able to perceive the contradictions and hypocrisies.
That law enforcement didn't do anything is no excuse for vigilantism. I am not encouraging vigilantism nor did I hear of any vigilantism going on. And there is no WAY that you can convince me that simply telling a story of what happened is in any way vigilantism.
The US government puts people at risk all the time by publishing the names and addresses of people deemed to be "sex offenders" (I use this term lightly for the US, because of all the FUD and extremist politics).
Ahh... The old "someone else does it too" defense. I suppose this means you think it's ok to murder too, since some states have the death penalty.
It's no defense. I'm just merely pointing out the hypocrisy in people. I am against murder and the death penalty. Yep, I'm against playing mind-fuck games with children as well. You can glean no sympathy from me.
Lynch mobs rarely do research. There's plenty of examples where media has been directly responsible in causing attacks on people by publishing names and addresses or pictures which people could have easily found for themselves, but the kind of people who go out and do that kind of crap are not usually the same kind of people that put in the effort to find out their identities. Examples? I see none. "directly responsible"? Just as people here don't seem to think the accused is directly responsible for the victim's suicide, I am not surprised that people here would claim that the people who are MERELY making this information available ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the actions of COMPLETE STRANGERS. Once again, I must say I am against lynch mobs. I too am also against sicko parents who lie, and manipulate children. There is NO hypocrisy on my part. If Americans can't handle the truth then they should start changing their behavior. As for your lynch mob hypothesis, we just have to wait and see what happens. I really don't see a lynch mob scenario unfolding here. Public embarrassment, yes. Lynch mob, well that's a bit of a stretch. A psychopath in the scenario I can see. But psychopaths don't need news stories to stalk or kill somebody. It just gives them an excuse. One cannot do anything about psychopaths in the first place, except that hope that they eventually get put into jail.
There IS a huge difference between making information available and making it easily accessible or pushing it in peoples faces. Yes this is true, but highly irrelevant to this discussion. If people don't want to read the news then they shouldn't.
Personally I don't want a society where people do the equivalent of shaking a red cloth in front of a bull regularly in the name of "public interest" - it's at best tasteless, and at worst dangerous. That's a bit of a metaphor. If you mean that you are against appeals to emotion, then I am too.
I strongly believe that anyone doing this should be equally responsible for any illegal act carried out as a result - hopefully that would be a deterrent. Again I smell hypocrisy. The same people who tend to argue against publishing bad behavior are the same ones who tend to excuse this bad behavior. In this discussion at least I here a lot of people blaming the victim, and yet stating it is wrong to even make public that this incident even occurred. That is highly unfair to both the victim and her family. However fair or not this may be, news is usually not pleasant. I don't remember people complaining when Jean Bonet Ramsey's parents were publicly accused of murder. But I do expect hypocrisy from people.
It's not the fact that Megan committed suicide. It's the fact that the accused was being (what is called in todays popular culture) a Child Predator. And she is (or at least was getting away with it). Pretending to be a minor and engaging in sexual conversation with a child is (as far as I know) against the law in the US. Playing a mind-fuck with a child in general I would suspect as being child abuse (psychological abuse). If this contributed to the suicide, then all the more weight to the accuser being punished (extrajudicially or not).
You have no right to know it until it has been confirmed. If your statement where true then that would mean that there would be almost no journalism (depending at least on what your standards are for the definition of the word "confirmed"), or blogging for that matter.
It should be left to the courts to decide The police originally said they were not interested in pressing charges. Now that this story is news it seems that they are re-considering (according to the posts here at least).
some ill-informed lynch mob with a knee-jerk reaction to whatever tidbits the media chose to publish today What lynch mob are you talking about? I haven't heard anything about a lynch mob. Just a lot of FUD.
*IF* she is found guilty of wrongdoing then you have a right to know. I doubt whether your analysis has any legal standing. If it is just your opinion of what rights a person has to knowledge, then that only has meaning for YOU, and for people who share your opinion.
If the court finds her innocent you have no right to know that she was even charged Again highly dubious. Are we talking legal rights, or self-fulfilling moral rights?
Whether this was a real story or not, that woman did no one any harm Oh? Trying to psychologically manipulate and hurt a 13 year old girl is not harmful? I'm pretty sure that if it was a 40 year old man pretty to be a young teen boy instead of a woman then their would be charges laid.
if she did Megan any harm, that's for law enforcement to deal with, not the rest of us. Law enforcement REFUSED to deal with it. And let's face it, laws and how they are enforced is very political. It's not unexpected for a vacuum to be filled.
By digging up her personal information - for which no one had any real, legitimate use - much less posting it online - these bloggers have negligently put this entire family's safety at serious risk. The US government puts people at risk all the time by publishing the names and addresses of people deemed to be "sex offenders" (I use this term lightly for the US, because of all the FUD and extremist politics).
These bloggers ought to have their information put out there by law enforcement - as convicted criminals. Aiding and abetting, for starters, then implied terroristic threats. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You imply that the culprit should not be punished (since LE obviously is not interested in punishing the accused), and yet you want these bloggers listed as criminals. Well I RTFA and the links, and one blogger already has her full name listed, and another one could be easily profiled.
Let's face it, information is not harmful in itself. Of course information can be used as a tool to do harm to others. Just like guns don't kill people, information does not kill people. I would think that if the accused had a daughter a of legal age, then this story wouldn't be quite so controversial. But negative stories are always posted on the news about people, especially in the States.
Yes crowds can be dangerous. People can be dangerous, but keeping something that obviously has a large public interest a secret is wrong (and unrealistic). Sometimes you just got to let the chips fall where they may and find out what type of society we live in. I think this is a time when the school and social workers can really have an impact on the students of Megan's school now that this story is out in the open. It's now time for the Leaders in the community to shine.
I do have a lot of sympathy for your sentiments. I myself was stalked in the past. It never got very far because I nipped it in the bud (changed phone numbers, moved, warned my family not to reveal my address to ANYBODY). Yep, that's one of the reasons I don't use my real name (although I could be easily profiled here). I takes my chances between freedom (of expression) and paranoia. But people just need to deal with reality. Shit happens. If this family needs to move then they should move. And yes, at least the accused family now knows the full story too.
For many interrogations they do record in the US, but not for anything that falls under the broad blanket of "terrorism". If you are suspected of being a terrorist in the US, then they (likely) won't interrogate you in the US (i.e. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7292). They will send you elsewhere thus avoiding scrutiny. In these cases they do not allow video taping (certainly not for the suspects protection). In Abu Ghraib http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse the army specifically ordered all pictures and videos to be turned in, never to be seen again (this was after the initial torture pictures got published of course).
You could also run WoW under a limited account in Windows BTW. A more practical approach would be running something like WinPooch http://winpooch.free.fr/page/home.php?lang=en&page=home, which can monitor processes, etc and warn against any malicious file accesses. Too bad WinPooch (and similar programs) can really bog down the system depending on how aggressive the scanning is.
Slashdot Mirror
One could use the analogy of buying a car, (which seems to be less abstract for people to understand) . Two people buy the same car. One person drives it only on the weekends, one person drives it everyday. The car costs the same amount of money. One could ask is this fair? Maybe not, but how one decides to use their vehicle is up to them. If they didn't want to take full advantage of their car and the freeways, then they could take public transit (i.e. dial-up Internet), or they could just buy a cheaper car or a bike (i.e. slow speed DSL). Chances are the people buying the sports cars are paying premium because they want to drive fast and take advantage of the features. If you don't want the features don't pay for them. And if there are too many cars on the road, then just widen the road.
I hope that gives you a new perspective.
Mark Cuban is talking about corporate broadcasters using P2P bandwidth. One would hope these corporations pay the artists what they deserve for their hard work. Yes group-think does suck, especially when you are on the wrong side of it.
Some facts:
Real fans pay for music.
Poor fans won't pay for music whether it is easily available or not.
And if there wasn't any demand, then there wouldn't be any supply.
The market will work itself out despite DRM and the like.
I find it ironic that I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes about copyright abuses and yet points to a Web site whose coalition includes the MPAA, among others. Ironic and self-defeating it seems, you silly copyright zealots!
Expecting to get an emotional response from a child based on a psychological form of conditioning is IMHO playing mind games. It reminds me of some of my bosses at various jobs. Instead of just telling people to change what they are doing, they make people feel guilty. From your original post:
and far as feelings go, if my children do something bad or stupid, they _should_ feel bad, and when they do something good, they should feel good
Any respectable psychologist will tell you that children should have unconditional love. But I could only presume that you would think that any form of Social Science would be considered too "Liberal" for your belief system, and therefore devoid of consideration. I have NEVER said that children should have unconditional approval for any or all behaviour. You made that up.
I've tried to be patient with you, but this statement shows me you are completely out of touch with reality. You sound like one of those liberal idiots (i.e., not all liberals are idiots, which is why I qualified it) who think children should be treated like miniature adults and left to make their own choices, whether they are good or they are stupid, and since children are, by definition, incapable of making good choices, they will inevitably do stupid things. If that weren't true, we would allow them to enter into binding contracts and other adult relationships.
What you think I sound like is irrelevant.
The more you talk (argue) the more your prejudices emerge. I have never said children should not have guidance or that they should do whatever they want. You are making this up and perverting the argument.
children are, by definition, incapable of making good choices
You are making things up as you go along. Children often make good choices, you alluded to this in your previous post. Of course children can also make bad choices as well. An intelligent guardian and mentor would certainly be beneficial, but good role models are often hard to come by. Being a parent in itself involves no inherent moral superiority.
there is objective good and objective evil, something you don't seem to believe.
I know something about good and evil, and that it is based on people's opinions, aside from that their is Nature, and the natural world does what it does without worrying about labels. This topic is more complex than you may think. I will not go there.
no one should feel good about doing wrong.
I agree.
I am not "manipulating" my kids
This may not be the case. Based on what you said in the previous post it sounded like it. One could presume that there would always be at least some form of manipulation in an authority / subordinate role (i.e. parent / child).
I do not "publicize" everything my kids do. All I ever said was that I talk about them, ...
I need not even bother to comment. Your words speak for themselves.
and that it is bizarre, unrealistic, and in fact downright dangerous if everything I do as a parent results in good feeling from my children. That's how you raise an ego-centric idiot with no concept of other people and an unlimi
Real World
First things first. This is the real world. Their is no alternate bizzaro universe to go to, no matter how much television you may watch. People who use "Real World" arguments do so because they don't have any rational arguments to make.
Your points are not unreasonable but they sound a little close to the kinds of attitudes that are turning so many of our children into emotional cripples full of hollow self-esteem that will fall to pieces in the real world and end up living in their parents' basement until they are 40 because they don't know how to deal with competition or legitimate criticism, leave alone the kind of criticism you get in the Real World, especially in places like /.
Having respect for somebody does not turn somebody into an "emotional cripple" who has "hollow self-esteem". I have noticed throughout my life (that children with bad parents) will either be dumb enough to grow up to be like their parents, or smart enough to reject them. As for my argument, it is just as pertinent for adults as it is with children. Adults can be asshats towards other adults as well. I do not expect people to change. I am merely pointing out bad behavior. If you choose to be rude that is your business. Unfortunately children do not have a choice of choosing their parents.
I don't need to get my children's permission to talk about them, whether it's with a neighbor or online,
True, you need NOBODY's permission to talk about your children. It is however disturbing that you seem to have a compulsion to talk about your children, whether it be with your neighbour or online.
and far as feelings go, if my children do something bad or stupid, they _should_ feel bad, and when they do something good, they should feel good, and that's exactly the kind of feedback they get from me.
If (you think) your children do something bad, then their is no need to publicize it to your neighbour's or online to the world. This is not only rude behavior but it is psychotic behaviour. Reference psychotic: lack of empathy and self-centredness.
As for wanting your children to feel a certain way based on what you consider good or bad behaviour is also bizarre and manipulative. Playing mind games with your children's feelings is wrong.
And you know what's funny? When they recognize do something bad, they feel bad. When they recognize they do something good, they feel good. Guess what they're more likely to do?
Again, publicizing this "bad" and "good" behaviour to the world is just plain bizarre. I hope your children are intelligent enough to realize this. Though the sad thing is that children tend to grow up just as rude and psychotic as their parents. Yes parents are a major influence on their children, whether it be good or bad.
You see, my superior judgment as an adult takes precedence over their inferior judgment as children. They are going to have to trust me. They have no choice. And neither do you.
Your poor arguments in favour of rude behavior and disrespect for children prove that you do not have "superior judgment as an adult"
They are going to have to trust me. They have no choice. And neither do you.
This is only partially correct. Your children may not have a choice, but I do. You have proven yourself untrustworthy to me. I have no trust in you whatsoever.
Regardless of what I may or may not be doing right, they are turning out to have a strong moral grounding (e.g., recognizing what's right and wrong sometimes in ways they are beyond their ages)
Most people who talk about morals don't have any. Reference the Church and the State under GWB. Although hypocrisy is rampant.
and when I come home from work, all 4 of them, ages 7 to 13 run out to welcome me home with hugs and cheers
I'm wandering what would happen if they didn't do this. Don't bother answering, it's a rhet
I will state that if a person (whether it be you or Wil Wheaton) writes about their kids, then they should discuss this with their children first and get their permission. Otherwise it is just gossip, whether it be written or oral in nature. If one wants to talk about their kids while at the same time protecting their anonymity, then this would be acceptable to me.
People should have etiquette and show respect for their children. In respects to the original poster: What's so problematic about discussing your children on the internet? Everyone with kids does it. I stand by what I have said all along, and I have answered the question (whether people agree or disagree with the answer). I hope I have elaborated appropriately on the premise that "Because the kids may not like that, either now or in the future." I certainly hope you do think about your children's feelings when you talk or write about them, and keep an open (and open-minded) dialogue with them.
It is irrelevant whether I am a parent or not. One thing that should be obvious though is that I was a child, and I never liked it when my parents gossiped about me. I presume that you are making this statement because you are a parent who likes to gossip about their kids, or perhaps just hear gossip from other parents. It's normal for people who engage in bad behaviour to be defensive about their own actions.
1 . Light informal conversation for social occasions
2. A report (often malicious) about the behaviour of other people "the divorce caused much gossip"
3. A person given to gossiping and divulging personal information about others Parents have always talked about there kids, this just happens to be a new medium. As I've said, popular behaviour does not make it right. (And yes BTW, I expected to be modded down for this rather unpopular statement). But sometimes things need to be said despite the popular consensus. DO you thinking people raise kids in a bubble? do you think parent know everything about raising kids? How do you think parent get advice from more experienced parents? Getting advice from people and gossiping are too different things. Getting advice from other parents is rather dubious unless they have a degree in Child Psychology or Early Childhood Education or something similar. If you are getting advice from somebody who believes it's OK to smack children around, for example, then you are probably getting advice from the wrong people.
As for Wil's book, I shall not comment on it since I have not read it. So do not necessarily take this as a slight to the book. I was merely replying to the original statement.
Because the kids may not like that, either now or in the future. Although I do have a feeling that most parents would not want there children discussing them on the Internet. The idea that you can do something bad just because everybody else does it is a common belief, but that does not make it correct. I would rather have parents discussing how they can protect their children's privacy, rather than have them violate that privacy. Gossip is something that I have always frowned upon, especially when it is done by family members.
I use most of those open source programs that you listed because they are better than the proprietary versions.
A. The trick is to use Perl's strengths rather than its weaknesses.
--- Larry Wall in 8225@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV The same can be said of OSS or anything for that matter. For SourceForge you may want to use the advanced search http://sourceforge.net/search/, and specifically use the "activity" fields to narrow down your search.
If you have javascript enabled then the easiest thing to do would be to press the filter button on the search results page and make sure projects without files are not listed. Remember to press the "Apply" buttom.
Here is a more comprehensive listing (than the cnet list) of open source software and their proprietary counterparts:
Open Source Alternative http://www.osalt.com/
Pricelessware is a fairly good resource for finding free software in general (lot's of propriatary freeware) http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/
freshmeat gets updated daily with lots of OSS. Though it has a Linux bias, there is a LOT of cross platform software available http://freshmeat.net/
SourceForge seems to be updating its list daily now as well. The front page listings are much smaller than freshmeat however http://sourceforge.net/
When deciding on what OSS to use, I often check the start date of the project and see if it is still actively being developed. The age of a project and developer involvement is a fairly good indicator of the quality of the software (i.e. you know bugs are constantly being fixed, and improvements made). There is no real reason for me to even think of buying most proprietary software much less downloading warez. There is still a lack of quality OSS games compared to the commercial market, but even this is changing (slowly). I'm still waiting for some of the more advanced and interesting looking games to get out of Alfa or beta stage.
I've noticed in many universities (in Canada at least), libraries are pretty much open access (no ID card required), save for the major U of T Library (the Robarts Research Library). If one could gain access to the Princeton libraries without an ID card then they would certainly be free for locals who don't want or need to sign anything out.
My view is that people simplify things too much (on either side of ANY argument). Reality is far more complex than most people IMHO seem to realize. Considering the fact that professional journalists often have less than a day to print a story, I wouldn't put too much credence in them either. I find professionals are often not always capital P Professional, but that often has a lot to do with pressures placed on them by management.
BTW I just visited your talk page on Wikipedia. Sorry to see you go. I've never personally followed you (or anyone) on Wikipedia. I just read the articles as my curiosity becomes aroused
regards
If some controversial issue comes up, it is usually better to get ALL the information out and let people deal with it. If we live in a society where we can't trust ourselves to process information intelligently and without being irrational, then we need to try our hardest to change that society. Shooting the messenger does not solve the underlying problem.
Bluemerle: Lori Drew CNN capture - Police report names Drew
http://bluemerle.blogspot.com/2007/11/lori-drew-cnn-capture-police-report.html:
In reference to their daughter's suicide, Drew explaind she wanted to "just tell them" what she did to
contribute to the Meier's daughter's suicide. She instigated and monitored a "my space"
account(---blurred) which was created for the sole purpose of communicating with Meier's daughter. Drew
said she, with the help of temporary empoyee named "Ashley", constructed a profile of "good looking" male
on "my space" in order to "find out what Megan (Meier's daughter) was saying on-line" about her daughter.
Drew explained the communication between the fake male profile was [?aimed? illeg] at gaining Megan's
confidence and finding out what Megan felt about her daughter and other people. Drew stated she, her
daughter, and Ashley all typed, read, and monitored the communication between the fake male profile and
Megan. Drew went on to say, the communication became "sexual for a thirteen year old." Drew stated she
continued the fake male profile despite this development.
According to Drew "somehow" other "my space" users were able to access the fake male profile and
Megan found out she had been duped. Drew stated she knew "arguments" had broken out between Megan
and others on "my space". Drew felt this incident contributed to Megan's suicide, but she did not feel "as
guilty" because at the funeral because she found out "Megan had tried to commit suicide before."
Drew explained the neighborhood had recently found out her involvement in Megan's suicide and her
neighbord have become hostile to toward her and her family. Despite the recency of the suicide and
several neighbors recommending she not confront the Meier family (especially on Thanksgiving), Meier
stated she and her husband attempted to contact the Meier family three times, "banging on the door"
although Mr Meier had already told them to leave.
Right on. That's basically what I have been arguing. You seem to be one of the few people here (so far) who really seems to be able to perceive the contradictions and hypocrisies.
It's no defense. I'm just merely pointing out the hypocrisy in people. I am against murder and the death penalty. Yep, I'm against playing mind-fuck games with children as well. You can glean no sympathy from me. Lynch mobs rarely do research. There's plenty of examples where media has been directly responsible in causing attacks on people by publishing names and addresses or pictures which people could have easily found for themselves, but the kind of people who go out and do that kind of crap are not usually the same kind of people that put in the effort to find out their identities. Examples? I see none. "directly responsible"? Just as people here don't seem to think the accused is directly responsible for the victim's suicide, I am not surprised that people here would claim that the people who are MERELY making this information available ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the actions of COMPLETE STRANGERS. Once again, I must say I am against lynch mobs. I too am also against sicko parents who lie, and manipulate children. There is NO hypocrisy on my part. If Americans can't handle the truth then they should start changing their behavior. As for your lynch mob hypothesis, we just have to wait and see what happens. I really don't see a lynch mob scenario unfolding here. Public embarrassment, yes. Lynch mob, well that's a bit of a stretch. A psychopath in the scenario I can see. But psychopaths don't need news stories to stalk or kill somebody. It just gives them an excuse. One cannot do anything about psychopaths in the first place, except that hope that they eventually get put into jail. There IS a huge difference between making information available and making it easily accessible or pushing it in peoples faces. Yes this is true, but highly irrelevant to this discussion. If people don't want to read the news then they shouldn't. Personally I don't want a society where people do the equivalent of shaking a red cloth in front of a bull regularly in the name of "public interest" - it's at best tasteless, and at worst dangerous. That's a bit of a metaphor. If you mean that you are against appeals to emotion, then I am too. I strongly believe that anyone doing this should be equally responsible for any illegal act carried out as a result - hopefully that would be a deterrent. Again I smell hypocrisy. The same people who tend to argue against publishing bad behavior are the same ones who tend to excuse this bad behavior. In this discussion at least I here a lot of people blaming the victim, and yet stating it is wrong to even make public that this incident even occurred. That is highly unfair to both the victim and her family. However fair or not this may be, news is usually not pleasant. I don't remember people complaining when Jean Bonet Ramsey's parents were publicly accused of murder. But I do expect hypocrisy from people.
It's not the fact that Megan committed suicide. It's the fact that the accused was being (what is called in todays popular culture) a Child Predator. And she is (or at least was getting away with it). Pretending to be a minor and engaging in sexual conversation with a child is (as far as I know) against the law in the US. Playing a mind-fuck with a child in general I would suspect as being child abuse (psychological abuse). If this contributed to the suicide, then all the more weight to the accuser being punished (extrajudicially or not).
Blaming the victim seems pretty sick IMHO.
Let's face it, information is not harmful in itself. Of course information can be used as a tool to do harm to others. Just like guns don't kill people, information does not kill people. I would think that if the accused had a daughter a of legal age, then this story wouldn't be quite so controversial. But negative stories are always posted on the news about people, especially in the States.
Yes crowds can be dangerous. People can be dangerous, but keeping something that obviously has a large public interest a secret is wrong (and unrealistic). Sometimes you just got to let the chips fall where they may and find out what type of society we live in. I think this is a time when the school and social workers can really have an impact on the students of Megan's school now that this story is out in the open. It's now time for the Leaders in the community to shine.
I do have a lot of sympathy for your sentiments. I myself was stalked in the past. It never got very far because I nipped it in the bud (changed phone numbers, moved, warned my family not to reveal my address to ANYBODY). Yep, that's one of the reasons I don't use my real name (although I could be easily profiled here). I takes my chances between freedom (of expression) and paranoia. But people just need to deal with reality. Shit happens. If this family needs to move then they should move. And yes, at least the accused family now knows the full story too.
I'm just very sorry this incident even happened.
(i.e. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7292).
They will send you elsewhere thus avoiding scrutiny. In these cases they do not allow video taping (certainly not for the suspects protection). In Abu Ghraib http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse the army specifically ordered all pictures and videos to be turned in, never to be seen again (this was after the initial torture pictures got published of course).
They will even send you to places like Syria
(i.e. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A522-2003Nov4).
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be an unofficial US policy. Yes just like corporations, the US government outsources some of its dirtiest jobs to get around domestic rules.
use a very restricted account when running it in wine. Problem solved. Along with Windows games, viruses and trojans can also run under Wine
(i.e. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2116150/linux-experts-wine-virus).
You could also run WoW under a limited account in Windows BTW. A more practical approach would be running something like WinPooch http://winpooch.free.fr/page/home.php?lang=en&page=home, which can monitor processes, etc and warn against any malicious file accesses. Too bad WinPooch (and similar programs) can really bog down the system depending on how aggressive the scanning is.