if "good" parents are disinvested in the public school system, they will not strive to make it better.
That is not their job.
You are mistaking means and ends. The reason we send kids to school isnt to make the schools better, its so that the kids get educated. If the schools are failing, the solution isnt to send kids to crappy schools to try to improve them, the solution is to send the kids somewhere where they WILL be educated.
Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me.
...so she might remark that getting mugged or joining a gang are life experiences every bit as valuable understanding the constitution.
His name calling aside, he raises very salient points, such as calling her out on
* she acknowledges you would basically have to accept that your kids will get a crappy education just in the hopes of fixing a terribly broken system
* her attempts to soften the blow by saying things like getting drunk in high school are a sort of school-worthy life experience
* her downplaying of moral and religious beliefs as sufficient to justify where you send your kids (because apparently only HER beliefs matter)
* The fact that she apparently doesnt have any horses in this race-- her kids arent in public schools yet. Its pretty easy to tell others how to act when you dont have to hold yourself to the same standard
* The strawman she seems to have of "rich people always gaming the system". The contempt for success is always hilarious; yes, lets trust a woman who sees success as "gaming the system" for how to best prepare our kids for the world. Maybe we can prevent them from being successful!
Hes pretty brutal and I think some of his comments are petty, but she deserves 90% of that criticism. The idea that a parent has the right to sacrifice their child's welfare for some social experiment is absurd and awful, and deserves to be called out as such.
There's a fundamental problem in all of this generation's encrypted storage: the server should never know the key, but the software now used to transport the file to the client is also the decryption software and is made by the company operating the server, so you have to trust that they aren't just phoning home your key and reading your precious files.
Thats true, but I believe that horse has already been beaten to death.
The claim HERE is that anyone can grab the key, which is just a stupid point to make: Its only true in situations where all security bets are off anyways (ie, youve already been rooted).
That is what is happening here. Just from reading the article, I can see that the key is using local browser storage, which is used to encrypt the data and upload to Mega. Mega is NOT doing the encryption (thats the entire point of doing it in JavaScript).
Unless Im misreading it, this can be summarized as follows:
* Coder has discovered that, in order to encrypt data, your computer must have access to the encryption key
* Further, if someone has root access to your machine, they can get your encryption key.
Wow. What a discovery.
MEGA and anyone else with access to your computer can see this, and use it to decrypt any file you upload.
Wait, someone with access to my computer has access to things that my computer has access to? WOW!
How about you remember the founding principles of this country and not assume that its OK to restrict someones rights just because they make poor decisions?
That's an interesting notion. Could you expand on what you mean by this assertion?
I mean that in general modern, non-authoritarian societies tend to be based on the idea that the individual has rights and society exists to protect those rights.
When you go the other route-- that the individual exists for the sake of society-- you logically can get rid of all rights: all that matters is the collective good, so we can restrict births to 1 per family, or prevent you from eating cheetos (because obesity hurts society at large), or deny you the right to choose your line of study / work. I generally think Ayn Rand goes overboard, but I imagine such a society taken to its extreme would look awfully like Anthem.
On the other hand, pulling your school from public school takes away funding from that school,
Correct me if Im wrong, but you continue to be taxed when you send your kids to a private school. I sort of thought thats what the voucher idea is about.
The author seems to be saying "we dont just want your tax dollars, but for you as a parent to be involved to cover for all the crappy parents who arent involved". Thats not how it works in the real world, you do not enable failures.
The idea of "individual existing for the sake of society" leads down a dark dark path. Human nature is what it is, and when you can cease to worry about individual liberties because only society matters, individual liberties will cease to exist.
Sacrificing your OWN welfare for society is one thing. But when you become a parent, you gain a responsibility to maintain the childs welfare-- not a right to sacrifice it.
. Many egocentric people use "it's not my responsibility" excuse to wash their conscience clean
Its not. For thousands of years, it has been understood to be the family's responsibility to raise and educate their kids. We now have public education, but parents still have to be involved for the kids to do well. In some areas, the parents are unwilling to do that. Well guess what, its not anyone elses responsibility to fix that. If there are parents who cant be bothered to move their kids out of failing schools or to take enough interest in them to keep them from making the school a ghetto, you cannot fix that for them.
ANd lets be real: noone says "im gonna go to that crappy supermarket to try to fix it". You shop elsewhere, and let the failed market fail, and the free market has worked. That is the underlying assumption of our economic system: that you get rid of crappy businesses by taking your dollars elsewhere. Except in this case, youre ALREADY giving your dollars to these failed schools, and you (and the article author) are demanding that parents now pour themselves into the school as well. Unfortunately, thats not a demand you can make.
The article you linked uses the word "detain" twice, both for documents. THere is NO indication that they can hold you for any length of time, because they cannot.
Show me a source of someone actually being detained, or stop spreading bull. The last thing we need in these discussions is more ambiguous crap-- the government puts out enough of that without pro-personal rights folks spewing crap right back.
AFAIK, border guards have no authority except to question you, and to deny visitors entry. They have no authority that I am aware of to arrest you or imprison you. Even TFA says as much.
Sacrificing your own future for the sake of your children's is a LOT different than sacrificing your children's future for the sake of a broken education system.
The Republicans figure if you aren't rich, it is your own damn fault,
Well, the world isnt perfect, and neither is any political ideology. But at least this keeps the state where it belongs, and allows for some concept of individual liberty to exist.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that there are evils in the world, does not to my mind justify creating additional ones.
His rebuttals are spot on. The slate author basically says "it may suck for your kids, and grandkids, and they wont learn as much, and you may have to ignore your religious beliefs, your child's special needs, etc.... but thats OK because its for the common good."
News flash: Individuals do not exist for the sake of society, society exists for the individual. It is NOT a parents duty to sacrifice the wellbeing of their child to on the altar of the state. I think Larry hit that point pretty square on, and the slate author has no clue.
She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that.
How about you take a deep breath and live with the fact that your existing system is a complete train wreck and people who love their children don’t want to participate in your continuing failure?
Slashdot Mirror
if "good" parents are disinvested in the public school system, they will not strive to make it better.
That is not their job.
You are mistaking means and ends. The reason we send kids to school isnt to make the schools better, its so that the kids get educated. If the schools are failing, the solution isnt to send kids to crappy schools to try to improve them, the solution is to send the kids somewhere where they WILL be educated.
Well, she does say that
Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me.
...so she might remark that getting mugged or joining a gang are life experiences every bit as valuable understanding the constitution.
His name calling aside, he raises very salient points, such as calling her out on
* she acknowledges you would basically have to accept that your kids will get a crappy education just in the hopes of fixing a terribly broken system
* her attempts to soften the blow by saying things like getting drunk in high school are a sort of school-worthy life experience
* her downplaying of moral and religious beliefs as sufficient to justify where you send your kids (because apparently only HER beliefs matter)
* The fact that she apparently doesnt have any horses in this race-- her kids arent in public schools yet. Its pretty easy to tell others how to act when you dont have to hold yourself to the same standard
* The strawman she seems to have of "rich people always gaming the system". The contempt for success is always hilarious; yes, lets trust a woman who sees success as "gaming the system" for how to best prepare our kids for the world. Maybe we can prevent them from being successful!
Hes pretty brutal and I think some of his comments are petty, but she deserves 90% of that criticism. The idea that a parent has the right to sacrifice their child's welfare for some social experiment is absurd and awful, and deserves to be called out as such.
There's a fundamental problem in all of this generation's encrypted storage: the server should never know the key, but the software now used to transport the file to the client is also the decryption software and is made by the company operating the server, so you have to trust that they aren't just phoning home your key and reading your precious files.
Thats true, but I believe that horse has already been beaten to death.
The claim HERE is that anyone can grab the key, which is just a stupid point to make: Its only true in situations where all security bets are off anyways (ie, youve already been rooted).
That is what is happening here. Just from reading the article, I can see that the key is using local browser storage, which is used to encrypt the data and upload to Mega. Mega is NOT doing the encryption (thats the entire point of doing it in JavaScript).
And foolish enough to run a browser which doesnt prevent cross-site scripting attacks.
Hey, if your browser allows random websites to pull all of your cookies, your login sessions could be compromised! Except, they do restrict that.
Pretty sure such an attack would qualify as a cross-site scripting vulnerability.
Unless Im misreading it, this can be summarized as follows:
* Coder has discovered that, in order to encrypt data, your computer must have access to the encryption key
* Further, if someone has root access to your machine, they can get your encryption key.
Wow. What a discovery.
MEGA and anyone else with access to your computer can see this, and use it to decrypt any file you upload.
Wait, someone with access to my computer has access to things that my computer has access to? WOW!
Considering that AMD is a gen or two behind, and their chips arent currently known for their efficiency, I dont know how impressive that is.
Perhaps you disagree.
Perhaps I like to stay in the realm of fact rather than wandering into the Zone of Wild Speculation.
They would need a charge, which they would not have, or probable cause, which they would not have.
I think we're done here, if all that we have is speculation and bluster.
It is NOT the job of the state to raise kids, and I really do not think you want to live in the kind of world that would create.
How about you remember the founding principles of this country and not assume that its OK to restrict someones rights just because they make poor decisions?
That's an interesting notion. Could you expand on what you mean by this assertion?
I mean that in general modern, non-authoritarian societies tend to be based on the idea that the individual has rights and society exists to protect those rights.
When you go the other route-- that the individual exists for the sake of society-- you logically can get rid of all rights: all that matters is the collective good, so we can restrict births to 1 per family, or prevent you from eating cheetos (because obesity hurts society at large), or deny you the right to choose your line of study / work. I generally think Ayn Rand goes overboard, but I imagine such a society taken to its extreme would look awfully like Anthem.
On the other hand, pulling your school from public school takes away funding from that school,
Correct me if Im wrong, but you continue to be taxed when you send your kids to a private school. I sort of thought thats what the voucher idea is about.
The author seems to be saying "we dont just want your tax dollars, but for you as a parent to be involved to cover for all the crappy parents who arent involved". Thats not how it works in the real world, you do not enable failures.
The idea of "individual existing for the sake of society" leads down a dark dark path. Human nature is what it is, and when you can cease to worry about individual liberties because only society matters, individual liberties will cease to exist.
Sacrificing your OWN welfare for society is one thing. But when you become a parent, you gain a responsibility to maintain the childs welfare-- not a right to sacrifice it.
. Many egocentric people use "it's not my responsibility" excuse to wash their conscience clean
Its not. For thousands of years, it has been understood to be the family's responsibility to raise and educate their kids. We now have public education, but parents still have to be involved for the kids to do well. In some areas, the parents are unwilling to do that. Well guess what, its not anyone elses responsibility to fix that. If there are parents who cant be bothered to move their kids out of failing schools or to take enough interest in them to keep them from making the school a ghetto, you cannot fix that for them.
ANd lets be real: noone says "im gonna go to that crappy supermarket to try to fix it". You shop elsewhere, and let the failed market fail, and the free market has worked. That is the underlying assumption of our economic system: that you get rid of crappy businesses by taking your dollars elsewhere. Except in this case, youre ALREADY giving your dollars to these failed schools, and you (and the article author) are demanding that parents now pour themselves into the school as well. Unfortunately, thats not a demand you can make.
The article you linked uses the word "detain" twice, both for documents. THere is NO indication that they can hold you for any length of time, because they cannot.
Show me a source of someone actually being detained, or stop spreading bull. The last thing we need in these discussions is more ambiguous crap-- the government puts out enough of that without pro-personal rights folks spewing crap right back.
Did you not RTFA
Well, you clearly did not. The article talks about how they kick you out, not how they imprison you.
Slashdot: Where hysteria and ignorance meet.
Do you have any source. or example. or statute?
AFAIK, border guards have no authority except to question you, and to deny visitors entry. They have no authority that I am aware of to arrest you or imprison you. Even TFA says as much.
Sacrificing your own future for the sake of your children's is a LOT different than sacrificing your children's future for the sake of a broken education system.
The Republicans figure if you aren't rich, it is your own damn fault,
Well, the world isnt perfect, and neither is any political ideology. But at least this keeps the state where it belongs, and allows for some concept of individual liberty to exist.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that there are evils in the world, does not to my mind justify creating additional ones.
TL;DR: Someone who would sacrifice the welfare of their child for some remote chance of fixing a broken system is unfit to parent.
Its your child, not some experiment to be used to try to fix the world.
His rebuttals are spot on. The slate author basically says "it may suck for your kids, and grandkids, and they wont learn as much, and you may have to ignore your religious beliefs, your child's special needs, etc.... but thats OK because its for the common good."
News flash: Individuals do not exist for the sake of society, society exists for the individual. It is NOT a parents duty to sacrifice the wellbeing of their child to on the altar of the state. I think Larry hit that point pretty square on, and the slate author has no clue.
Brilliant.
She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that.
How about you take a deep breath and live with the fact that your existing system is a complete train wreck and people who love their children don’t want to participate in your continuing failure?
I think that about sums it up.