>>>Propping up POTS is probably a bad idea..... string fiber to small towns and then put up a cell tower.
Short-sighted thinking. Cell towers are limited to only ONE spectrum, which has to be shared with other services like shortwave, AM, FM, TV, emergency radio, and so on. Cellular internet has limited growth potential.
In contrast, wired internet has unlimited spectrum. Every time you lay a wire, you get a whole new spectrum from 0 to ~100 gigahertz. It is much wiser to build the internet on Wires rather than wireless.
And since it's using the existing infrastructure (copper), upgrading POTS to DSL will save billions of dollars in less labor cost.
>>>It is amazing the bandwidh that can be seen with newer DSL modems, its enough to even carry video.
I get the feeling you are being sarcastic, but Japan is the world's 2nd fastest country for broadband, and they use almost nothing but DSL. Their latest standard can handle 120 Mbit/s over standard copper wires. That's enough bandwidth to feed 12 different HDTVs with content.
>>>I'm a nerd who lives out in the boonies 40 miles from the nearest major city, and i'm sick of having low speed net connections.
Move.
- Don't steal money from your neighbors' wallets to subsidize your rural lifestyle. Move in closer to where DSL or CATV internet exists. Government should stop subsidizing sprawl and encourage more living close to the city.
>>*Fwap* >>You insensitive clod.
Right back at you. My bills are high enough; I have no desire to support you too. ----- Oh and the healthcare requirement is illegal. The Union government can not mandate what products you must buy - it was never given that power by the Member states.
When I worked for the government, we were allowed to book $120 per night hotel rooms. Outrageous. Really government workers should not receive more than half that allowance ($60) and book at places like Motel 6 or Super 8.
>>>all them them city folks will now pay $20 a month, to subsidize broadband for folks who live on in the boonies >>> This is why city people pay higher taxes, and the money flows to the red, rural states. City people are being forced to subsidize the rural lifestyle. (Phone USF, corporate farm subsidies, interstate road fund, electricity handouts, etc.) In an ideal world the rural persons would not be receiving any assistance, but the politicians inside the cities keep shooting themselves in the foot, and adding more taxes.
Oh well. (goes off to enjoy the country view.) Thanks.
Just because you keep repeating the same FALSE article, does not make it any more true. READ the 1996 Telecommunications Act sometime. Most of the money was designated, not for optics, but for phone lines to be upgraded to Digital service. And the phone companies complied with that demand by Congress.
If you want to place blame, then place it on the congressmen for writing such a dumb bill.
>>>Anyone anywhere in rural area can get phone service
Not the "same" price. It costs more to connect a phone in the boonies, then it does in the city or suburb, but the price will be reduced/subsidized by the USF fee.
And what this means for broadband - Phone companies will start offering DSL to everyone, again, subsidized by the USF. So now no one can claim, "I don't access to broadband" because they will. DSL has a frequency width of 100 MHz >>> the 0.004 MHz of phone lines.
>>>Slacker radio is one of the best as far as I'm concerned.
I just listen to standard AM or FM stations. Since HD multiplexing has arrived, most of them carry advertising-free channels which specialize in various formats (disco, club, alternative, album rock, etc).
Yeah actually it is. Laws that are contrary to the constitution are NOT laws - they don't exist. And the power of nullification is reserved to the member states (amend. 10) or the People (amend.9).
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions --- a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
"...But the Chief Justice says there must be an arbiter somewhere. True there must, but the ultimate arbiter is the people, as represented by their deputies in the State Legislatures. Let the States decide to which they meant to give power, and amend the constitution if necessary."
>>>You do know you can donate money to the IRS, don't you?
I already "donate" $20-25,000 a year to the IRS, State treasury, and local treasury. I feel no desire to donate more.
HOWEVER your post is a good response to those upper middle class persons who say, "Let's raise the tax rate. I feel I'm not giving enough." - Okay. Well if YOU don't think you're giving enough, then YOU should give more on the 1040 form, not demand everyone's taxes go up.
This is why anonymous cowards should be banned from posting on slashdot. Either that, or demote their score to -1 by default since ACs have little to contribute. If the poster wants to be seen, let them register an account. It only takes 3 minutes.
This is why anonymous cowards should be banned from posting on slashdot. Either that, or demote their score to -1 by default since ACs have little to contribute. If the poster wants to be seen, let them register an account. It only takes 3 minutes.
And also registered users should never be able to post as AC.
I already "donate" $20-25,000 a year to the IRS, State treasury, and local treasury. I feel no desire to donate more.
HOWEVER you post is a good response to those upper middle class persons who say, "Let's raise the tax rate. I feel I'm not giving enough." - Okay. Well if YOU don't think you're giving enough, then YOU should give more on the 1040 form, not demand everyone's taxes go up. Jackass.
Your post merely demonstrates you've never studied Philosophy. Spend at least a year (preferably more) studying Philosophy, especially greek, roman, and renaissance natural rights philosophy, and then re-read your post. You'll laugh at yourself.
It's also Not the decision of the supreme court. They have the power to review cases and render verdicts, Not the power to nullify laws passed by the union government. Such power is reserved to the member states (amend. 10) or the People (amend.9).
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions --- a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
"...But the Chief Justice says there must be an arbiter somewhere. True there must, but the ultimate arbiter is the people, as represented by their deputies in the State Legislatures. Let the States decide to which they meant to give power, and amend the constitution if necessary."
Disagree. Why? Because then you open-up parents to all kinds of liabilities: You spanked your child? 5 years jail. You decided Government schools were crap, and homeschooled instead? How dare you! 10 years jail.
"What do you mean you let your kid run-around naked, because your family believes nudism is healthy? OMG the trauma you filthy hippy heathen!!!" 20 years. "You LET your daughter date a black boy? You've ruined her." More jail time.
And if I want to go really extreme, we could have a situation like the novel 1984, where kids simply tattle on their parents ("They made me go to bed without supper"), so the parents live in constant fear of being arrested. This is not the kind of society we want to create.
You say if a child has no vaccine, and gets sick, punish the parents..... but how do you know the vaccine would have prevented the illness? You do not. I had all my vaccines and still had a sickly childhood.
It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed. Every item I listed in my original post HAS happened. Nudists arrested because they let sons/daughters be nudist too. Christians (or muslims or jews) barred from sending kids to home or private school. Parents arrested because they let their kids do inter-racial dating.
No government should have the power to arrest parents simply because Said government disagrees with their parenting practices. If the parent is killing or abusing children, then yes intervene, but not for matters which are purely a matter of Opinion for child-raising.
>>>Can we start to agree to stop playing this sick game with the content creators where they try to make us pay and we try not to?
Media is the ONLY industry that does not warranty their creations. In every other market, even lowly candybars, you are provided with a guarantee: "If for any reason you are not satisfied, return the unused portion for a refund or store credit." THAT is why I download. I don't want to pay for shit, and then be stuck with the $20 DVD for the rest of my life. I want to be able to have the same guarantee that *every other product* provides - customer satisfaction or money back. (Or store credit.)
But since that's not available, I try before I buy and have saved literally thousands of dollars by avoiding ____ like Transformers 2, Twilight, New Moon, Sherlock Holmes, Batman Begins, Star Wars Clone Wars, and on and on. (By the way 'read the reviews' doesn't work - those things are bought-and-paid by the companies selling the movies. Reviews cannot be trusted.)
Of course if I do find something I like, such as Babylon 5, Deep Space Nine, Gattaca, et cetera then I will certainly buy it. The people who created these deserve to get paid for doing excellent work. But I don't want to throw-away money on junk - I can't afford it.
The full quote is: âoeOn the one hand information wants to be expensive, because itâ(TM)s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. - On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. - So you have these two, value of information & cheap distribution of same, fighting against each other.â - Stewart Brand And in regards to copyright, a man with an IQ of 170 once opined:
"If Nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by Nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
"Inventions then cannot, by Natural right, be a subject of property..... grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, may produce more evil than good [example: RIAA and MPAA]." - Thomas Jefferson
>>>If you don't believe that it's abuse (or at least sexual harassment), try spanking or hitting some random person (perhaps a women for greater effect) >>>
Thank you for demonstrating why government should not interfere with parental decisions. YOU would have half of America's parents arrested because that's how many have spanked their children.
BTW you need to watch the South Park episode about spanking to keep children under control. I can't find the video, but maybe this will jog your memory:
- The teacher can't control his class, so a psychiatrist comes to visit and demonstrate a new method of making the kids keep quiet and learn - "(whack) Shut up and pay attention in class!" Kids go silent. Learning gets done.
It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed. Every item I listed in my original post HAS happened. Nudists arrested because they let sons/daughters be nudist too. Christians (or muslims or jews) barred from sending kids to home or private school. Parents arrested because they let their kids do inter-racial dating.
No government should have the power to arrest parents simply because Said government disagrees with their parenting practices. If the parent is killing or abusing children, then yeah intervene, but not for matters which are purely a matter of Opinion for child-raising.
BTW modding me flamebait won't shut me up. I will continue flapping my mouth & exercising my right to hold an opinion, even if I am in the minority. i.e. I won't be like Galileo.
Another example is a family that was FORCED to send their daughter to public school (from 7th grade onward), because the judge decided schooling by the local Catholic school wasn't good enough.
And then there was the nudist family (multiple cases) that was arrested for letting their teen son (or daughter) run-around naked in the Nudist club they belong to. And on and on and on. It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed.
I have seen it happen before. A parent let's the kid see nude photos, and the local law enforcement throws them in jail. Or drink beer (which is common in my area - lots of German families), and goes to jail. In the musical "Riverboat" the local sheriff tried to jail a man for being letting his son date to a black girl. That wasn't just fiction - it was based on actual law.
If the parents murders or sexually abuses a kid, yeah send them to jail, but not for trivial stuff. Let parents BE parents and make their own choices on how to raise a kid.
Disagree. Why? Because then you open-up parents to all kinds of liabilities: You spanked your child? 5 years jail. You decided Government schools were crap, and homeschooled instead? How dare you! 10 years jail.
"What do you mean you let your kid run-around naked, because your family believes nudism is healthy? OMG the trauma you filthy hippy heathen!!!" 20 years. "You LET your daughter date a black boy? Now you've tainted her for life. You've ruined her." Hanging.
Never, never, never should society be able to dictate how parents should behave. Else becoming a parent means you become a Slave to the society at large, and can be sued for the most ridiculous things. And don't say it can't happen, because it's happened before (especially the whole white/black and nudism issue).
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Propping up POTS is probably a bad idea..... string fiber to small towns and then put up a cell tower.
Short-sighted thinking. Cell towers are limited to only ONE spectrum, which has to be shared with other services like shortwave, AM, FM, TV, emergency radio, and so on. Cellular internet has limited growth potential.
In contrast, wired internet has unlimited spectrum. Every time you lay a wire, you get a whole new spectrum from 0 to ~100 gigahertz. It is much wiser to build the internet on Wires rather than wireless.
And since it's using the existing infrastructure (copper), upgrading POTS to DSL will save billions of dollars in less labor cost.
>>>It is amazing the bandwidh that can be seen with newer DSL modems, its enough to even carry video.
I get the feeling you are being sarcastic, but Japan is the world's 2nd fastest country for broadband, and they use almost nothing but DSL. Their latest standard can handle 120 Mbit/s over standard copper wires. That's enough bandwidth to feed 12 different HDTVs with content.
>>>I'm a nerd who lives out in the boonies 40 miles from the nearest major city, and i'm sick of having low speed net connections.
Move.
- Don't steal money from your neighbors' wallets to subsidize your rural lifestyle. Move in closer to where DSL or CATV internet exists. Government should stop subsidizing sprawl and encourage more living close to the city.
>>*Fwap*
>>You insensitive clod.
Right back at you. My bills are high enough; I have no desire to support you too. ----- Oh and the healthcare requirement is illegal. The Union government can not mandate what products you must buy - it was never given that power by the Member states.
When I worked for the government, we were allowed to book $120 per night hotel rooms. Outrageous. Really government workers should not receive more than half that allowance ($60) and book at places like Motel 6 or Super 8.
>>>all them them city folks will now pay $20 a month, to subsidize broadband for folks who live on in the boonies
>>>
This is why city people pay higher taxes, and the money flows to the red, rural states. City people are being forced to subsidize the rural lifestyle. (Phone USF, corporate farm subsidies, interstate road fund, electricity handouts, etc.) In an ideal world the rural persons would not be receiving any assistance, but the politicians inside the cities keep shooting themselves in the foot, and adding more taxes.
Oh well. (goes off to enjoy the country view.) Thanks.
Just because you keep repeating the same FALSE article, does not make it any more true. READ the 1996 Telecommunications Act sometime. Most of the money was designated, not for optics, but for phone lines to be upgraded to Digital service. And the phone companies complied with that demand by Congress.
If you want to place blame, then place it on the congressmen for writing such a dumb bill.
>>>Anyone anywhere in rural area can get phone service
Not the "same" price. It costs more to connect a phone in the boonies, then it does in the city or suburb, but the price will be reduced/subsidized by the USF fee.
And what this means for broadband - Phone companies will start offering DSL to everyone, again, subsidized by the USF. So now no one can claim, "I don't access to broadband" because they will. DSL has a frequency width of 100 MHz >>> the 0.004 MHz of phone lines.
>>>Slacker radio is one of the best as far as I'm concerned.
I just listen to standard AM or FM stations. Since HD multiplexing has arrived, most of them carry advertising-free channels which specialize in various formats (disco, club, alternative, album rock, etc).
Here's the one I listen to while at work (since everything else is blocked):
http://radiotime.com/station/s_52398/Mix_2_1065.aspx
Or Radio Jackie in London - www.radiojackie.com/listennowpage.asp
>>>constitutionality is not your decision
Yeah actually it is. Laws that are contrary to the constitution are NOT laws - they don't exist. And the power of nullification is reserved to the member states (amend. 10) or the People (amend.9).
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions --- a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
"...But the Chief Justice says there must be an arbiter somewhere. True there must, but the ultimate arbiter is the people, as represented by their deputies in the State Legislatures. Let the States decide to which they meant to give power, and amend the constitution if necessary."
Thomas Jefferson - 1820
>>>You do know you can donate money to the IRS, don't you?
I already "donate" $20-25,000 a year to the IRS, State treasury, and local treasury. I feel no desire to donate more.
HOWEVER your post is a good response to those upper middle class persons who say, "Let's raise the tax rate. I feel I'm not giving enough." - Okay. Well if YOU don't think you're giving enough, then YOU should give more on the 1040 form, not demand everyone's taxes go up.
>>>two homosexual jews known as Penn & Teller
This is why anonymous cowards should be banned from posting on slashdot. Either that, or demote their score to -1 by default since ACs have little to contribute. If the poster wants to be seen, let them register an account. It only takes 3 minutes.
>>>two homosexual jews known as Penn & Teller
This is why anonymous cowards should be banned from posting on slashdot. Either that, or demote their score to -1 by default since ACs have little to contribute. If the poster wants to be seen, let them register an account. It only takes 3 minutes.
And also registered users should never be able to post as AC.
I already "donate" $20-25,000 a year to the IRS, State treasury, and local treasury. I feel no desire to donate more.
HOWEVER you post is a good response to those upper middle class persons who say, "Let's raise the tax rate. I feel I'm not giving enough." - Okay. Well if YOU don't think you're giving enough, then YOU should give more on the 1040 form, not demand everyone's taxes go up. Jackass.
Your post merely demonstrates you've never studied Philosophy. Spend at least a year (preferably more) studying Philosophy, especially greek, roman, and renaissance natural rights philosophy, and then re-read your post. You'll laugh at yourself.
>>>constitutionality is not your decision
It's also Not the decision of the supreme court. They have the power to review cases and render verdicts, Not the power to nullify laws passed by the union government. Such power is reserved to the member states (amend. 10) or the People (amend.9).
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions --- a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
"...But the Chief Justice says there must be an arbiter somewhere. True there must, but the ultimate arbiter is the people, as represented by their deputies in the State Legislatures. Let the States decide to which they meant to give power, and amend the constitution if necessary."
Thomas Jefferson - 1820
>>>hold their parents criminally liable.
Disagree.
Why?
Because then you open-up parents to all kinds of liabilities: You spanked your child? 5 years jail. You decided Government schools were crap, and homeschooled instead? How dare you! 10 years jail.
"What do you mean you let your kid run-around naked, because your family believes nudism is healthy? OMG the trauma you filthy hippy heathen!!!" 20 years. "You LET your daughter date a black boy? You've ruined her." More jail time.
And if I want to go really extreme, we could have a situation like the novel 1984, where kids simply tattle on their parents ("They made me go to bed without supper"), so the parents live in constant fear of being arrested. This is not the kind of society we want to create.
Nobody can predict the future.
You say if a child has no vaccine, and gets sick, punish the parents..... but how do you know the vaccine would have prevented the illness? You do not. I had all my vaccines and still had a sickly childhood.
It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed. Every item I listed in my original post HAS happened. Nudists arrested because they let sons/daughters be nudist too. Christians (or muslims or jews) barred from sending kids to home or private school. Parents arrested because they let their kids do inter-racial dating.
No government should have the power to arrest parents simply because Said government disagrees with their parenting practices. If the parent is killing or abusing children, then yes intervene, but not for matters which are purely a matter of Opinion for child-raising.
>>>Can we start to agree to stop playing this sick game with the content creators where they try to make us pay and we try not to?
Media is the ONLY industry that does not warranty their creations. In every other market, even lowly candybars, you are provided with a guarantee: "If for any reason you are not satisfied, return the unused portion for a refund or store credit." THAT is why I download. I don't want to pay for shit, and then be stuck with the $20 DVD for the rest of my life. I want to be able to have the same guarantee that *every other product* provides - customer satisfaction or money back. (Or store credit.)
But since that's not available, I try before I buy and have saved literally thousands of dollars by avoiding ____ like Transformers 2, Twilight, New Moon, Sherlock Holmes, Batman Begins, Star Wars Clone Wars, and on and on. (By the way 'read the reviews' doesn't work - those things are bought-and-paid by the companies selling the movies. Reviews cannot be trusted.)
Of course if I do find something I like, such as Babylon 5, Deep Space Nine, Gattaca, et cetera then I will certainly buy it. The people who created these deserve to get paid for doing excellent work. But I don't want to throw-away money on junk - I can't afford it.
The full quote is: âoeOn the one hand information wants to be expensive, because itâ(TM)s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. - On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. - So you have these two, value of information & cheap distribution of same, fighting against each other.â - Stewart Brand
And in regards to copyright, a man with an IQ of 170 once opined:
"If Nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by Nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
"Inventions then cannot, by Natural right, be a subject of property..... grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, may produce more evil than good [example: RIAA and MPAA]." - Thomas Jefferson
>>>If you don't believe that it's abuse (or at least sexual harassment), try spanking or hitting some random person (perhaps a women for greater effect)
>>>
Thank you for demonstrating why government should not interfere with parental decisions. YOU would have half of America's parents arrested because that's how many have spanked their children.
BTW you need to watch the South Park episode about spanking to keep children under control. I can't find the video, but maybe this will jog your memory:
- The teacher can't control his class, so a psychiatrist comes to visit and demonstrate a new method of making the kids keep quiet and learn - "(whack) Shut up and pay attention in class!" Kids go silent. Learning gets done.
It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed. Every item I listed in my original post HAS happened. Nudists arrested because they let sons/daughters be nudist too. Christians (or muslims or jews) barred from sending kids to home or private school. Parents arrested because they let their kids do inter-racial dating.
No government should have the power to arrest parents simply because Said government disagrees with their parenting practices. If the parent is killing or abusing children, then yeah intervene, but not for matters which are purely a matter of Opinion for child-raising.
BTW modding me flamebait won't shut me up.
I will continue flapping my mouth & exercising my
right to hold an opinion, even if I am in the minority.
i.e. I won't be like Galileo.
>>>musical [Show]boat
Fixed.
Another example is a family that was FORCED to send their daughter to public school (from 7th grade onward), because the judge decided schooling by the local Catholic school wasn't good enough.
And then there was the nudist family (multiple cases) that was arrested for letting their teen son (or daughter) run-around naked in the Nudist club they belong to. And on and on and on. It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed.
I have seen it happen before. A parent let's the kid see nude photos, and the local law enforcement throws them in jail. Or drink beer (which is common in my area - lots of German families), and goes to jail. In the musical "Riverboat" the local sheriff tried to jail a man for being letting his son date to a black girl. That wasn't just fiction - it was based on actual law.
If the parents murders or sexually abuses a kid, yeah send them to jail, but not for trivial stuff. Let parents BE parents and make their own choices on how to raise a kid.
A recent study shows that Second-hand smoke, when trapped in the same room, does indeed cause harm due to the polluted air.
Rather than types three pages of cites, I'll just link to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-hand_smoke#Evidence
>>>hold their parents criminally liable.
Disagree.
Why?
Because then you open-up parents to all kinds of liabilities: You spanked your child? 5 years jail. You decided Government schools were crap, and homeschooled instead? How dare you! 10 years jail.
"What do you mean you let your kid run-around naked, because your family believes nudism is healthy? OMG the trauma you filthy hippy heathen!!!" 20 years. "You LET your daughter date a black boy? Now you've tainted her for life. You've ruined her." Hanging.
Never, never, never should society be able to dictate how parents should behave. Else becoming a parent means you become a Slave to the society at large, and can be sued for the most ridiculous things. And don't say it can't happen, because it's happened before (especially the whole white/black and nudism issue).