Soon schools will also have to teach kids to dress: "Now remember class, you can't wear a striped shirt with plaid pants". They already do. It's called a dress code.
Some private schools go even further and require uniforms.
I don't think this is a good idea. I've always seen the need for drivers' licenses as a way to protect everyone who is not the driver. The Internet, on the other hand, usually doesn't require protection by the state because it isn't as difficult to secure your PC from viruses as it is to secure your house from car attacks. Any malicious activity is already illegal, and it isn't that difficult for the FBI to trace malware back to the source.
Now, if you're talking about some kind of optional certification that lists you as a safe Internet user, then I suppose I could see some merit in that idea. But by no means should it be done by the state or any government entity.
An "Internet license" would have to involve either mandatory cooperation with all of the countries that are online or a regulation body would need to hand them out. You would also say goodbye to Internet handles. Just like every car has to be registered with the DMV and every insurance company tags a driver to a car, every website might have to require the license ID of its users and report them to the website's insurance agency. Just like many states make car insurance mandatory, so too could the government/license authority. This would effectively let people trace the communication of all licensed users, not to mention P2P and other connections not based on a client/server architecture could not be licensed and would thus be outlawed. I don't know about you, but I'd rather risk accidentally getting a virus than live in that world.
I believe the real problem with sex education today is that neither the biological approach nor the safety approach actually fits the definition of being educated about sex. Sex isn't something you just know how to do by instinct (aside from the conservative "insert penis into vagina" definition - but if that were truly the definition of sex it would be incredibly boring). It has to be taught. So, naturally, the kids need to learn it from somewhere else.
Where else? I'll give you a hint: it sure as hell isn't from the parents.
If a 15-year-old mugged me, I'd expect the SOB to rot in jail, not his parents. What possible lesson could the kid see if his parents are put in jail? That he can get away with anything and it won't be his fault?
We tell kids not to talk to strangers, so telling them not to talk to strangers on the Internet is probably a good idea. And if kids actually listened when they were told this, they would never attempt to make friends, online or otherwise.
Right, and that's why so many teens that have sex use condoms. I mean who would possibly rebel in a way which wasn't completely self destructive. Many rebel not because of what the authorities say but how they say it. School teachers tend to talk down to their students, whether they do it on purpose or not. Eventually a sizable amount of the population realizes that they have been blatantly lied to by an authoritative figure "for their own good" at some point in their lifetime and thereon take any word of caution that isn't painfully obvious to them as potential BS. Things like using condoms during sex and not drinking and driving are becoming more common because it's easy to see, even without being lectured, that taking these actions is much smarter than not taking them.
Also, in the case of condoms, a fad in the US these days seems to be that sex-ed programs should be abstinence-only. Using a condom, even though it is the responsible thing to do, can still be seen as rebelling against abstinence-only teachers and parents.
Sure, the DMCA prevents you from breaking CSS on your DVDs. Sure, that's stupid. But, being told not to break CSS everytime you fire up VLC hardly stifles "innovation." Maybe not from the consumer side, but it certainly has the effect of scaring developers into not posting decryption tools created for backup purposes, or cryptographers into not posting flaws in encryption schemes.
2) Even if it was used to curb piracy, how does that lead to a lack of innovation? I would understand software patents, but... Because now not only do we readily have the tools at our disposal to consume content at a rapid pace, but we can also make new content. These classes would sure as hell avoid the issue of "fair use" completely, preferring to scare away anyone who may want to make a short parody of a popular film or present constructive criticism of a radio show host.
3) Even if that was a negative consequence, teaching kids good online habits seems to outweigh it. By this logic, the lack of fact-checking by most anti-drug campaigns is outweighed by getting the word out about drugs. But hey, the ends justify the means, right?
4) Piracy *is* illegal, and the government *should* support upholding the law. For the most, "piracy" as you are referring to it is a civil matter, and civil law is enforced by private parties. The law clearly states that copyrights are to be enforced by copyright holders, not the government. So why should state-sponsored campaigns exist for something that the law says is to be dealt with privately between the parties involved?
So people should educate themselves about the dangers of the Internet on... the Internet?
While to the average Slashdotter that makes perfect sense, to the average computer-illiterate person it sounds like a Catch-22. Telling them that the Internet is dangerous and then referring them to sites where they can learn how to protect themselves will cause at least one person to say "But how can we visit them if we don't already know how to be careful?"
How do I do that in Evolution? But adblockplus won't run under IE12, what do I do? And just how many non-nerd high school students do you know who would ask such a thing?
Since the poster didn't use the ever-popular "Britney Spears" example but specifically NiN, I'm pretty sure he know full well that it was CC-licensed. What he was trying to illustrate is that these types of people will try to generalize to the public that all music requires payment/prohibits redistribution and that nobody allows for the sharing of their work online.
I don't think so considering how the majority of sexual child abuse cases are perpetrated by someone the child knows closely. Then we must start investing in ChildTracker.
Never play it. Ever. If you don't find yourself addicted to it you will become so awkward you will eventually cease to have a social life (assuming you had one in the first place).
All of this thankfully learned from observance and not experience.
Another problem is that, before you apply for your first AP course, you have to know ahead of time what colleges you want to apply and their policies on AP transfer if you don't want to get shafted later. In my high school the typical time one takes AP courses was junior year, and I consider that way too early to be narrowing down colleges. My university only transfers AP credits if you received a 4 or 5 on the AP exam, despite the College Board considering 3 to be the minimal passing grade. Even if you pass the class, you risk having to take it again. Sure, it should be easier the second time around, but isn't one of the reasons for AP so that you don't have to take that course in college?
In retrospect, it's a good thing I avoided AP like the plague. I'd be royally pissed of I worked my ass off, possibly at the expense of other high school courses, only to find out that all of that effort didn't even count when I got to college.
Instead, their response is to punish those that wish to learn so they can look like they are helping minorities. Later in life they call this Affirmative Action.
Slashdot Mirror
Some private schools go even further and require uniforms.
I don't think this is a good idea. I've always seen the need for drivers' licenses as a way to protect everyone who is not the driver. The Internet, on the other hand, usually doesn't require protection by the state because it isn't as difficult to secure your PC from viruses as it is to secure your house from car attacks. Any malicious activity is already illegal, and it isn't that difficult for the FBI to trace malware back to the source.
Now, if you're talking about some kind of optional certification that lists you as a safe Internet user, then I suppose I could see some merit in that idea. But by no means should it be done by the state or any government entity.
An "Internet license" would have to involve either mandatory cooperation with all of the countries that are online or a regulation body would need to hand them out. You would also say goodbye to Internet handles. Just like every car has to be registered with the DMV and every insurance company tags a driver to a car, every website might have to require the license ID of its users and report them to the website's insurance agency. Just like many states make car insurance mandatory, so too could the government/license authority. This would effectively let people trace the communication of all licensed users, not to mention P2P and other connections not based on a client/server architecture could not be licensed and would thus be outlawed. I don't know about you, but I'd rather risk accidentally getting a virus than live in that world.
I believe the real problem with sex education today is that neither the biological approach nor the safety approach actually fits the definition of being educated about sex. Sex isn't something you just know how to do by instinct (aside from the conservative "insert penis into vagina" definition - but if that were truly the definition of sex it would be incredibly boring). It has to be taught. So, naturally, the kids need to learn it from somewhere else.
Where else? I'll give you a hint: it sure as hell isn't from the parents.
If a 15-year-old mugged me, I'd expect the SOB to rot in jail, not his parents. What possible lesson could the kid see if his parents are put in jail? That he can get away with anything and it won't be his fault?
Also, in the case of condoms, a fad in the US these days seems to be that sex-ed programs should be abstinence-only. Using a condom, even though it is the responsible thing to do, can still be seen as rebelling against abstinence-only teachers and parents.
So people should educate themselves about the dangers of the Internet on... the Internet?
While to the average Slashdotter that makes perfect sense, to the average computer-illiterate person it sounds like a Catch-22. Telling them that the Internet is dangerous and then referring them to sites where they can learn how to protect themselves will cause at least one person to say "But how can we visit them if we don't already know how to be careful?"
Since the poster didn't use the ever-popular "Britney Spears" example but specifically NiN, I'm pretty sure he know full well that it was CC-licensed. What he was trying to illustrate is that these types of people will try to generalize to the public that all music requires payment/prohibits redistribution and that nobody allows for the sharing of their work online.
Most adults don't have common sense. Look at how many idiots get screwed by phishing sites.
Never play it. Ever. If you don't find yourself addicted to it you will become so awkward you will eventually cease to have a social life (assuming you had one in the first place).
All of this thankfully learned from observance and not experience.
Indeed. Orwell didn't just pull Britain out of a hat full of governments when he write 1984.
"Look to your left, and look to your right. Chances are that both of these men will rape you."
The more repressive and invasive a government or other powerful entity gets, the more paranoid people become.
Who modded this Funny? It should have been modded Insightful.
Indeed. Who wants to work, anyway?
As of 2006, my high school has AP classes, but no AP CS. Hell, it wasn't until I saw this article that I even knew that there was an AP CS.
If Gates starts funneling into AP CS, you can bet that we'll see more MS-centric stuff being taught.
Another problem is that, before you apply for your first AP course, you have to know ahead of time what colleges you want to apply and their policies on AP transfer if you don't want to get shafted later. In my high school the typical time one takes AP courses was junior year, and I consider that way too early to be narrowing down colleges. My university only transfers AP credits if you received a 4 or 5 on the AP exam, despite the College Board considering 3 to be the minimal passing grade. Even if you pass the class, you risk having to take it again. Sure, it should be easier the second time around, but isn't one of the reasons for AP so that you don't have to take that course in college?
In retrospect, it's a good thing I avoided AP like the plague. I'd be royally pissed of I worked my ass off, possibly at the expense of other high school courses, only to find out that all of that effort didn't even count when I got to college.
Use the Internet?
Sterile humans cannot reproduce!! Say NO to the vasectomy agenda!!!!