White always makes me feel like I'm wearing my undershirt on the outside. Okay at home, maybe out grocery shopping, but makes me feel underdressed for work or general public stuff.
Except (if you read the bugtraq post) MS left IE6 vunerable (and released no patch for IE5). It gave incorrect information about several vunerabilities, which makes one suspect that they might have not fixed them correctly.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the bugtraq post, but if true, this is not 'fixing the symptom until the underlying problem can be fixed', this is 'fixing one popularized symptom while leaving others untouched'.
A number of people have noticed that a majority of/. users use IE. Some of them may well be opera or other browser users who have their browsers to announce otherwise, but certainly, a number of/. users actually use IE. Some of us still use Win98 too, even if just at work or at home because our families can't use another OS (yet...)
> It is one thing to have it explained by a parent, > and quite another to have it explained by > "superStud4U" in the Harry Potter chat room on > AOL.
Which is why you explained it to her first. Because kids will be given faulty (put charitably) information from many sources. Keeping kids out of chat rooms is easy compared to protecting them from kids at school. Doesn't AOL have some sort of chat room monitoring system? Why was someone with a name like superStud4U allowed to stay in a kid's chat room? Jeeze. (If not, why was your kid in an unsupervised chat without you around to keep an eye on things?)
> Is illiteracy really that rampant, or does it > just run in your family?
I fail to see how asking for clarification indicates that I am illiterate. You said:
> I've had to encourage her to not trust anyone she > hasn't put a face on
The obvious corallary to to that is that you *have* encouraged her to to trust people she has "put a face on". This is (obviously) not the wisest position to take (for a child or adult) either. I was attempting to clarify whether this was the case.
> Do you think that a 12 year old isn't going to > question your judgment no matter what you tell > them?
Granted, I'm not (yet) a parent of a twelve year old. Mostly because if I were I would have had to start when *I* was twelve, and, well, that would just be bad. But I am fortunate to be friends with several parents who have quite charming twelve year olds. This isn't to say that they never talk back or never question their parents judgement. But in general they are intelligent and reasonable and will listen to a reasoned argument and treat their parents and other people around them with respect. They may (and will!) fight when presented with a restriction they don't like, but if their parents hold their ground, they'll abide by it. And I've been watching these sorts of parents because that's the kind of twelve year old I want. I figure by the time the kids hit twelve or thirteen they're going to have to be civilized because they are going to be *bigger* than me;)
I've given birth to one child, he is four and a half, and been a full time parent to two others for four years (eventually I ended up breaking up with their respective parents). My partner and I plan to have three more in the next four to five years. We also may be taking in one or two teens who are family members, so we'll see how we stnad up to *that* challenge. I have to say, I fail to see the horror of being talked back to. Sure, it's not something I think should be encouraged (do it to the wrong person and you'll end up with a fat lip or worse, regardless of your age) but, on my list of the sins committed in childhood it's way down there. Hold your ground, don't let them get your goat, and they'll stop, at least the little ones. I suspect kids do it to a lot of people just because it gets a reaction. Really.
As for gender confused, as the.sig says, *I* am not gender confused -- I know damn well what my gender is. If the rest of the world gets confused, that's their problem. It just offers me quite a bit of amusement ("Check out that pregnant man!";) )
While I have no idea why the texas police chose to preface those stats with *that* definition, it appears that that was not the definition used in finding those stats.
The page doesn't reference the study, but some searching strongly suggests that the study is the one referenced here. Two other potentially useful studies are here and here
1) Of course, if your choice is work two or three minimum wage jobs in order to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, or have time with the kids but leave them starving and homeless, the priority starts getting a bit fuzzy here. Yes, lots of parents who *don't* need to work all the time neglect their kids because their career is too important, or because they are addicted to the money. And Lots of parents don't have a choice. Some had a choice before the kids were born. Some found themselves in a bad situation afterwards.
2) It's really hard to type papers with books. Books and computers aren't mutually exclusive. There's room for both. That said, my kids will probably be in their teens before they get their own computer, though they are certainly welcome to use mine.
3) Or the office. Having one room for an office or study type room isn't a bad idea. Easier to convince the kids to do their homework when Dad has homework to do too. Easier to keep an eye on the computer usage when you're using a different computer in the same room. Or reading a book in that room.
4) I agree. Conditionally -- at some point (in their teens) you have to let go and let them make their own decisions. You should still offer input, but they aren't going to take it. This should, ideally, be a gradual process. The worst young adults I've seen are the ones who's parents kept a tight leash on them until they were 18 or so, then just cut them loose. No experience making their own decisions, or being anything other than a dependant child, with all the responsibilities carried by a parent, and then the entirety of adulthood. It's not a good thing to do to a kid. (The worst teens I've seen are the ones who's parents cut them loose around the time they hit puberty. but they tend to calm down by the time they hit young adulthood)
Your point on overcontrolling parents is taken (believe me, mine were nuts, I had to ask to go out on the back porch at seventeen years old. my partner, in contrast, raised his younger siblings -- and by this I mean the two oldest were responsible for grocery shopping, finding the money for food, cooking, cleaning, the whole nine yard, before they were in grade school -- parenting discussions between us get interesting;) I keep hoping that the disperity in our respective crappy upbringings brings us to a more balanced, better upbringing for our kids)
At the same time the original poster had some good points. Number four, in particular, is something every parent should do, regardless of the age of the child. The rest are more appropriate for children under the age of 13 or so, but are *important* while the kids are younger.
Well, web pages are generally not going to be too dangerous. Even the worst of them -- most of us probably managed to get ahold of a porn magazine at least once in our childhood. Most of us aren't traumatized by it. Despite what some say, it's not super likely that a random search is going to bring you kiddie porn or even hard core porn. Basically all porn sites have "click to enter, click to leave" buttons. Finding actual kiddie porn on the 'net is harder than the media would have you believe.
Even hate sites and things like that are difficult to accidently stumble upon, though it's more likely than porn.
Chat is, of course, a different beast. But I have an idea that doens't involve more legislation (or it could, but at least it would be productive).
Remember those "Stranger danger" programs from school? Update them. It's the exact same problem. The major differences are that parents today didn't grow up with this, so they don't necessarily know how to teach their kids to protect themselves, and partially because leaving your kid alone in a mall or bar to talk to strangers would get you a nice visit from CPS, leaving your kid alone in a chat room won't. This isn't a perfect analogy, because no one has ever actually been abducted from a chat room -- predators have gotten information from kids in chatrooms that later made it easier to abduct the child, predators have talked kids into meeting them in person in chat rooms, but no one has ever actually reached through the wire and plucked a kid out of a chat room;)
So update the stranger danger programs, which are pretty common in schools anyway. Push it into schools that don't bother now. Kids have been taught for decades now not to take candy from strangers, not to go near stranger's cars, esspecially if they want directions or are offering candy or toys. When they are teaching this they can just as easily teach that you shouldn't tell people online where you live, or what you look like. Kids have been learning for decades that no one should touch you in the places that your swimsuit covers, and if someone does, they need to tell a trusted adult. They should also learn now that if someone tries to talk to them about those areas, or other inappropriate things, and if someone does so online (or in the real world, for that matter) they need to tell a trusted adult. Kids have been learning for decades that if an adult tells you to keep things a secret from your parents, something is wrong and you need to tell your parents. Teach them that this goes doubly online.
There's already programs in place, they just need to expand. Get the word out in the same way -- through schools, through extra-curricular activities (scouts, etc), through daycares, through commercials during children's television shows, through kids shows themselves, through children's reading materials.
How many kids do you know, in the United States, will take candy from strangers by the time they are in first grade or so?
There are other things besides chat and games online. There's plenty that one can do that doens't ever show the intelligence or maturity of the user. Browing slashdot, but not commenting, for instance.
Kids, in my experience, can be quite intelligent and mature on moment and not the next. It's amazing how, in some age groups, a little adult supervision reinforces the intelligent and mature behavior and minizes the not so intelligent, not so mature behavior. Also, an otherwise intelligent and mature child, a child who can go into a chat room or email conversation and say useful, insightful things, in a polite manner, may not yet have the judgement to know what should and should not be said in terms of identifying information, or when it's safe to meet people in real life and when it's not. (If I had a twelve year old -- or even a yougner child -- who wanted to go to a local LUG meeting, I'd take them, and stay there with them. No problem. Meeting the random guy who's been flirting with them. Hell no!)
It's not a "no supervision or not at all" proposition at all.
If you're allowing your 12 year old to chat online without at least some supervision from a trusted adult (you, her other parent/gaurdian if she has one, trusted friend of yours, teachers, etc) then I'd question your wisdom.
Beyond that, a 12 year old should probably have at least some working idea of what a pedophile is. Even the very small special needs kids my partner works with know that a pedophile is someone who hurts kids. They don't need details, and it would be inappropriate to tell them much more than that. For a 12 year old (assuming she doesn't have significant language delay, developmental delay or some other complication), she should probably know at least the basics on what sex is (where babies come from, and at least some of the emotional implications -- intimacy, betrayal -- esspecially getting pregnant and being abandoned or getting an STD, *esspecially* an incurable one like HIV, HPV, Herpes or some forms of Hepetitis -- etc), she's going to hit puberty pretty soon if she hasn't already. Belive me, you would far rather be explaining this now then explaining in two years when she's puking every morning and hasn't had her period in three months. You, as a responsible parent, will actually take the time to find accurate information and pass that on. Her friends and future boyfriends most likely won't. So it's probably age appropriate to tell her that a pedophile is an adult who wants to have sex with children, and it's only appropriate for adults to have sex with other adults. Children shoudln't be having sex. It can be harmful to them, physically and emotionally, for the rest of their lives. Unless there is some underlying complication, a 12 year old can understand this.
Obviously, as a parent you have the right to tell or not tell your child whatever you want. You can tell her that charging across busy streets without looking both ways first and ignoring her education in favor of watching television all day is a good idea. But I don't recommend it.
As far as lying and trust on line. Have you taught your daughter that everyone she meets in the real world is safe and to be trusted? I hope not. She should no more trust the random stranger at the supermarket, or the random stranger who walks up your driveway and asks her directions, than anyone online. The online dangers are pretty much only extensions of the dangers of the real world. The biggest difference I see is that parents today grew up with the real world dangers. They know the dangers and teach their children to recognize them: don't go with strangers, even if they offer you candy, want you to help find their puppy or want directions; don't let anyone touch you in your 'swimsuit areas' (or whatever wording you choose). Parents today didn't (with a few exceptions, who mostly are too young to have teens just yet). They don't know (unless they educate themselves) what the dangers are and how to alert their kids to them.
If I were twelve, and someone were telling me that everyone in the real world could be trusted, but absolutely no one online could be trusted, that all were 'liars and losers', I'd probably question their judgement too. If someone told me this *now* I'd question their judgement.
Kids aren't (for the most part) stupid. Kids are born ignorant, some say innocent, but whichever you choose, they can only change this through learning. They can only learn if their parents both teach them and give them opportunity to learn.
It doesn't challenge my common sense, and here's why:
very near to 100% of my female friends were sexually abused as children. Last I checked I had three female friends who hadn't been. I was sexually abused as a child. I've spent years dealing with this crap from several angles.
By sexual abuse I mean sexually penetrated by an adult, nearly always male, most commonly a father, but uncles, much older brothers, babysitters, mothers, grandmothers, teachers and grandfathers have done such things to my friends.
Now, I *don't* think that this means that 100% of people (or near to it) were sexually abused as children. I do think that people (like you) who think "That stat can't be right because 27%/16%/21% of my friends haven't been sexually abused as children" have a few things going on that you probably aren't aware of.
First, sexual abuse is not something most people (there are certainly exceptions to this rule) are going to tell just anyone and everyone. Chances are you know at least a few people who have been sexually abused who haven't told you. Incidently, the stigma of telling is *much* higher for males. But it's pretty high for females, as well. Part of this is societal. Part of this is that secrecy, and threats made in order to continue this secrecy, are a very common componant of abuse (i.e. I'll kill your dog/CPS will take you away to an orphanage/I'll hurt mommy/Daddy will think you're a bad girl/Everyone will know that you're a sick boy who is obsessed with sex if you tell) and it's *hard* to talk about it, for a lot of people, a lot of the time.
Second, sexual abuse survivors have a tendency to become friends with other survivors or with abusers (who have at least sometimes, and possibly often, been abused themselves at some prior time). Thing about (for example) being a geek. Chances are, your friends are more likely to be geeks than not to be. When you have friends who aren't geeks, unless you have some other non-geek interest, you find that they lack a frame of reference for discussing most of what you're interested in, and very likely vice versa as well. Same problem, only that those who grow up with chronic sexual abuse (as opposed to limited incidents) or in an otherwise abusive family have a completely different learned set of social skills and expectations of the reactions of others. These things can be un/re-learned, but it takes time.
Incidently, the only polls I know of that count anything like bra snapping (sexuality-related teasing from other kids) as sexual abuse have reults that run higher than 50%, not 27%.
My guess if that one counted bra snapping, it would be close to 90%;)
Theoretically most of the time you can tell fault in any type of traffic accident by looking at how the cars hit.
I know the differences between traffic circles and roundabouts. OTOH, at least I've never seen anyone try to go the wrong way in a DC traffic circle (which is more than I can say for the roundabouts I've seen here).
I don't know about the ones in florida, I've seen them in california and in the DC suburbs and Philly suburbs, and seen entirely too many people think that the appropriate way to make a left turn is to left turn into the circle (even with a big honking arrow pointing to the right. why are people so dumb!!!)
And then there's the folks who can't figure out the whole right-of-way thing (happily nearly thwacking the person actually in the circle)
I don't know. Maybe we (Americans) should stop using the whole "Driving is a privilege not a right" thing to actually stop people from driving if they are too stupid/ignorant, rather thna using it as an excuse to take away driver's licenses for smoking in high school and such.
It was on the bus (they asked for ID at the terminals, too, but that's normal, in my experience).
I've never heard that it's illegal for them to ask for ID -- they've essentially always asked me for ID when buying tickets with cash (they've forgotten a few times, or maybe they knew me, since I was doing the short run every week or so, but for all the long runs I've done they've asked me for ID) for as long as I've been riding greyhound (five years or so) but I've always had some sort of appropriate ID so I don't know if they would have given me trouble if I refused. AFAIK greyhound busses (terminals, etc) are more-or-less private property, so they have the right to kick you off if you refuse to follow any of their rules, including refusing to show ID (they kicked a guy off while my partner was riding last week -- in the middle of nowhere! For having lost his ticket stub, apparently. I've seen them kick people off for drinking alcohol, in the middle of nowhere, even, but you'd think that if the guy had had the stub when they left hte last stop, they could have at least waited until the next stop!)
One of the new things they have implemented is some sort of bus police/security folks. I don't know the legal standing of these folks (security gaurds? police? something else?) but they search the busses and the lugguage and do metal scans. It's much more like airport security these days.
My partner did, last week, due to a death in the family. Every hour or two, all night, they'd wake everyone up, check tickets, check IDs. ID best match your ticket. (They were looking at baggage as well)
Why do I guess this? Because, if you were, you'd know that the average USian is just dumb enough not to know which way to go in a roundabout/traffic circle.
This is bad enough in places like Washington DC (where there are a number of traffic circles and have been literally since the city was designed a couple hundred years ago), in places where they've put them in in the last ten years, forget about it! USian drivers + traffic circle = very very scary.
There's some argument here about not letting people drive unless they are intelligent enough to understand that traffic circle = counter clockwise, but...
A theory must be falsifiable, so I guess, in that sense, if a theory is proven false (i.e. if the theory is "The cat will always go to her food when coming in from outside" and the cat is observed going to the bed instead, it has been proven false) it's false, but more correctly,, since a theory is an *explantion* it's *wrong*. It cannot be proven to be true. It can be supported by observation. It can be generally accepted (the theory of gravity, for example) but it can't be considered true in the way an observation is true or false (I either observed the cat go to her food at 3:40pm today, or I didn't).
Specifically on evolution. When people say 'the theory of evolution' they usually mean one of two things:
1. The theory that states that over generations, through natural selection, species change to better fit their environment. This one has a great deal of evidence supporting it. It's extremely hard to argue against this one. I don't bother. As far as I can tell there are no glaring inconsistancies and it's about as close to correct as we can get right now.
2. The theory that humans evolved from the same predecessor as non-human primates. This one is a bit more interesting. There's lots of evidence for: physical and genetic similarities between humans and non-human primates. But we're missing the 'missing link'. While it is, to me, far more likely that humans evolved over eons than that some outside force (god? aliens?) zapped some poor unsuspecting monkey into the first human being, we don't have enough fossil evidence (or other evidence) to show that this didn't happen. My personal opinion is that this is the most likely theory, but that data could come up, even within my lifetime that suggests otherwise.
Incidently, I don't belive in god or creationism but I'd rather talk to people who have a well reasoned response for why they don't think the theory of evolution (either version) is correct then people who parrot it as gospel without thinking.
Hear hear! If I had points, I'd mod you up, since I don't, I'll just heartily agree.
Except that I'm not sure it's possible to teach kids (or anyone) to think. It's possible to encourage them to think. It's possible to model good critical thinking skills. It's possible to discuss and perhaps even partially codify good critical thinking skills, but I don't think it's anymore possible to teach a kid thinking skills then it is to teach them to appreciate music.
How does that show that the original poster lacks scientific knowledge?
The theory of evolution is just that, a *theory*. Theories are, by definition, neither true nor false. They can be supported by evidence or disproved by evidence, but they cannot be declared true or false.
I think your response shows *your* ignorance of science.
I found the CNN write up to be interesting, but I'm wondering about the study methodology. How did they choose their sample? What sort of answers were allowed? Anyone know where I can get more indepth info?
For instance, CNN mentions that a substantial percentage of Americans read the local astrology column on a regular basis. Does this mean that those people belive in astrology? Or does this simply mean that a substantial percentage of folks read the astrology column for the same reason that I read the personals column of the local rag when I get a hold of the hardcopy version -- entertainment. I don't plan on calling anyone, heck, most of the papers I read on any sort of regular basis don't have anything resembling a 'poly-transmen seeking similar' section, and I know well enough that the vast majority of those in the 'seeking men' or 'seeking women' sections aren't going to react positively to, well, me. But I read it because it amuses me to see what other humans say about themselves, and I read the astrology column for the same reason, because it's a way to gather information on more 'normal' humans.
Or, another place where I'd like to see methology is the "ESP exists" question. I am well aware of the view of mainstream scientists' views this topic. I'm aware of quite a bit of research on it. I believe that for the most part they are correct. I also have a friend who has the most uncanny knack for showing up for homecooked dinners at my household, where both the time and content of dinner ought to be used for a rand function. How does he know to get on the road a good hour before we even realize that we're not going to order out or do leftovers or skip dinner altogther (very common)? Granted, this is nowhere near telepathy or spoon bending, and there may be a very logical explanation we have all overlooked (but some pretty intelligent geeks have been pondering this for seven years, you'd think we woulda figured it out by now). I don't *know* that is ESP. The most intellectually honest position I can come up with on that and a few other things that I am personally aware of is "I don't know." And that is my position.
Was "I don't know" an option?
This is the problem I see with the state of science in this country. Not only do people not have the first clue about the scientific process, but they also haven't got a clue about the difference between a fact and a theory. There's an argument that can be made that this starts out in school: how many of us remember hearing "It's a scientific fact that..."? But it's seen in media and in general conversation as well.
Science is made up of theories, some are more widely accepted as others, but all could be invalidated or significantly revised if data is found that contradicts them.
And those theories are only as good as the data they are based on. How many people noticed the glaring jump in logic on the astrology issue in the CNN writeup -- that since n% of people read the astrology column, that same n% must believe in astrology? How many people wondered if the same jump in logic was found in the study themselves?
The root of science is not found in being able to parrot the theory of relativity, or even being able to understand it at some level. The root of science is found in critical thinking, it all grow up from there.
If we *really* wanted to improve science knowledge in this country, we'd encourage everybody, esspecially children (it's far easier to learn this as a child) to learn to think critically. As a society we are rather unprepared to do this. Most americans don't know how to think critically, thus they cannot teach their children this skill. Even if we could do so, a critically thinking populous would undermine our government and our economy. While I think that both would probably be replaced by something better, since government and corporations have the most control over the resources in this country, and government has the most control over resources going to education, and those in power now have nothing to gain and everything to lose from changing the current government and economy, I doubt that this will change anytime soon.
As an individual I can learn to think critically, I can value intellectual honesty, and I can encourage my children and any other children and adults I come into contact with to do the same. And so I encourage everyone who reads this to do so. But that's all I can do. I don't know if this is ever going to be useful in a widespread manner, but perhaps it will be useful to others as individuals (and perhaps you'll find that it sucks. Often I do)
Been there, done that. Found another IT position that doens't require a beeper (yay!) and seriously considering moving into programming.
I guess my only major thought on programming being a burn-out-prone, dead-end job is that, to a certain extent, all jobs can be. Yes, even that 'dream job' that you just thought up. It depends on the person. It depends on the circumstance. Personally, I doubt I'll ever spent more than ten years in any given specialty. Thus far, I've spent three years as a PC tech, two years as tech support, four years as a sysadmin and one month as an IDS analyst. I figure I've got a few more years doing that, a few (maybe a decade) years programming, then it's time to either go to college (I haven't done that yet, really, just a bit here and there) and do something else (I have a short list of 'something elses' that I'd like to pursue, we'll see which one I choose). As someone who never ever wants to be a manager (the only exception is if I own my own business -- probably a small farm -- and that's rather different from being a middle manager somewhere), and as someone who has a good forty years before retirement, at least (I'm 24, as of tomorrow), I think that the only real alternative is to accept that the old model (one career your entire working life) is more-or-less dead and create a new one. Build on what you know, find ways of applying your old knowledge to new things, and don't stop learning. Prevents burnout, prevents boredom.
Thus far it's working pretty well. Ask me in 40 years, though;)
Re:Not entire line of Craftsman products
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 1
Yup. And they don't care if the reason you broke that screwdriver is because you thought it would make a great prybar, or you were using it to drive out a bearing race.
But even better, if you find (in a junk pile, in a thirft store, in a pawn shop, doesn't matter) a craftsman tool that is rusted to hell, broken or both, you can haul it to sears and they'll give you a new one.
I recognize that this is an attempt at humour, but seriously: on some roads, driving the speed limit is dangerous. First, because the flow of traffic is 10-15 mph higher than the posted speed limit (this is typical of the DC beltway at certain hours) and this is not a safe condition to be driving in, and second because it can really piss off people (I've been sideswiped for going the speed limit. no joke. I've seen others sideswiped for the same thing. Of course, in philly, I once saw someone side swipe an old woman for actually stopping at a stop light, so...road rage is too frequent, certainly).
My biggest problem on the beltway has been figuring out where the happy medium is -- that speed at which I'm not risking the wrath or momentary non-watchfulness of another driver (which runs sixty five or seventy at times) but not risking the wrath of the cops (when the posted limit is 55) -- or, for that matter, that speed on those nice winding local roads where I don't feel safe because *I* don't drive that road every day, but the bastard behind me is flashing his lights, honking his horn and then passing me in an unsafe manner (perhaps with a feint at a side swipe) even though I'm already five miles over the posted limit.
I don't know. I think that 'safe speed' is something the average american doesn't get. they're too used to posted arbitrary speed limits that don't even get read, half the time.
Slashdot Mirror
White always makes me feel like I'm wearing my undershirt on the outside. Okay at home, maybe out grocery shopping, but makes me feel underdressed for work or general public stuff.
That's just my own particular neurosis, though.
Except (if you read the bugtraq post) MS left IE6 vunerable (and released no patch for IE5). It gave incorrect information about several vunerabilities, which makes one suspect that they might have not fixed them correctly.
/. users use IE. Some of them may well be opera or other browser users who have their browsers to announce otherwise, but certainly, a number of /. users actually use IE. Some of us still use Win98 too, even if just at work or at home because our families can't use another OS (yet...)
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the bugtraq post, but if true, this is not 'fixing the symptom until the underlying problem can be fixed', this is 'fixing one popularized symptom while leaving others untouched'.
A number of people have noticed that a majority of
Okay. just clarifying. Agreed.
Which is, btw, why most pedophiles work to be respected members of the community, youth leaders, coaches, that sort of thing.
creepy.
> It is one thing to have it explained by a parent,
;)
.sig says, *I* am not gender confused -- I know damn well what my gender is. If the rest of the world gets confused, that's their problem. It just offers me quite a bit of amusement ("Check out that pregnant man!" ;) )
> and quite another to have it explained by
> "superStud4U" in the Harry Potter chat room on
> AOL.
Which is why you explained it to her first. Because kids will be given faulty (put charitably) information from many sources. Keeping kids out of chat rooms is easy compared to protecting them from kids at school. Doesn't AOL have some sort of chat room monitoring system? Why was someone with a name like superStud4U allowed to stay in a kid's chat room? Jeeze. (If not, why was your kid in an unsupervised chat without you around to keep an eye on things?)
> Is illiteracy really that rampant, or does it
> just run in your family?
I fail to see how asking for clarification indicates that I am illiterate. You said:
> I've had to encourage her to not trust anyone she
> hasn't put a face on
The obvious corallary to to that is that you *have* encouraged her to to trust people she has "put a face on". This is (obviously) not the wisest position to take (for a child or adult) either. I was attempting to clarify whether this was the case.
> Do you think that a 12 year old isn't going to
> question your judgment no matter what you tell
> them?
Granted, I'm not (yet) a parent of a twelve year old. Mostly because if I were I would have had to start when *I* was twelve, and, well, that would just be bad. But I am fortunate to be friends with several parents who have quite charming twelve year olds. This isn't to say that they never talk back or never question their parents judgement. But in general they are intelligent and reasonable and will listen to a reasoned argument and treat their parents and other people around them with respect. They may (and will!) fight when presented with a restriction they don't like, but if their parents hold their ground, they'll abide by it. And I've been watching these sorts of parents because that's the kind of twelve year old I want. I figure by the time the kids hit twelve or thirteen they're going to have to be civilized because they are going to be *bigger* than me
I've given birth to one child, he is four and a half, and been a full time parent to two others for four years (eventually I ended up breaking up with their respective parents). My partner and I plan to have three more in the next four to five years. We also may be taking in one or two teens who are family members, so we'll see how we stnad up to *that* challenge. I have to say, I fail to see the horror of being talked back to. Sure, it's not something I think should be encouraged (do it to the wrong person and you'll end up with a fat lip or worse, regardless of your age) but, on my list of the sins committed in childhood it's way down there. Hold your ground, don't let them get your goat, and they'll stop, at least the little ones. I suspect kids do it to a lot of people just because it gets a reaction. Really.
As for gender confused, as the
While I have no idea why the texas police chose to preface those stats with *that* definition, it appears that that was not the definition used in finding those stats.
The page doesn't reference the study, but some searching strongly suggests that the study is the one referenced here. Two other potentially useful studies are here and here
1) Of course, if your choice is work two or three minimum wage jobs in order to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, or have time with the kids but leave them starving and homeless, the priority starts getting a bit fuzzy here. Yes, lots of parents who *don't* need to work all the time neglect their kids because their career is too important, or because they are addicted to the money. And Lots of parents don't have a choice. Some had a choice before the kids were born. Some found themselves in a bad situation afterwards.
2) It's really hard to type papers with books. Books and computers aren't mutually exclusive. There's room for both. That said, my kids will probably be in their teens before they get their own computer, though they are certainly welcome to use mine.
3) Or the office. Having one room for an office or study type room isn't a bad idea. Easier to convince the kids to do their homework when Dad has homework to do too. Easier to keep an eye on the computer usage when you're using a different computer in the same room. Or reading a book in that room.
4) I agree. Conditionally -- at some point (in their teens) you have to let go and let them make their own decisions. You should still offer input, but they aren't going to take it. This should, ideally, be a gradual process. The worst young adults I've seen are the ones who's parents kept a tight leash on them until they were 18 or so, then just cut them loose. No experience making their own decisions, or being anything other than a dependant child, with all the responsibilities carried by a parent, and then the entirety of adulthood. It's not a good thing to do to a kid. (The worst teens I've seen are the ones who's parents cut them loose around the time they hit puberty. but they tend to calm down by the time they hit young adulthood)
Your point on overcontrolling parents is taken (believe me, mine were nuts, I had to ask to go out on the back porch at seventeen years old. my partner, in contrast, raised his younger siblings -- and by this I mean the two oldest were responsible for grocery shopping, finding the money for food, cooking, cleaning, the whole nine yard, before they were in grade school -- parenting discussions between us get interesting ;) I keep hoping that the disperity in our respective crappy upbringings brings us to a more balanced, better upbringing for our kids)
At the same time the original poster had some good points. Number four, in particular, is something every parent should do, regardless of the age of the child. The rest are more appropriate for children under the age of 13 or so, but are *important* while the kids are younger.
Why is that the 'real threat'?
Well, web pages are generally not going to be too dangerous. Even the worst of them -- most of us probably managed to get ahold of a porn magazine at least once in our childhood. Most of us aren't traumatized by it. Despite what some say, it's not super likely that a random search is going to bring you kiddie porn or even hard core porn. Basically all porn sites have "click to enter, click to leave" buttons. Finding actual kiddie porn on the 'net is harder than the media would have you believe.
;)
Even hate sites and things like that are difficult to accidently stumble upon, though it's more likely than porn.
Chat is, of course, a different beast. But I have an idea that doens't involve more legislation (or it could, but at least it would be productive).
Remember those "Stranger danger" programs from school? Update them. It's the exact same problem. The major differences are that parents today didn't grow up with this, so they don't necessarily know how to teach their kids to protect themselves, and partially because leaving your kid alone in a mall or bar to talk to strangers would get you a nice visit from CPS, leaving your kid alone in a chat room won't. This isn't a perfect analogy, because no one has ever actually been abducted from a chat room -- predators have gotten information from kids in chatrooms that later made it easier to abduct the child, predators have talked kids into meeting them in person in chat rooms, but no one has ever actually reached through the wire and plucked a kid out of a chat room
So update the stranger danger programs, which are pretty common in schools anyway. Push it into schools that don't bother now. Kids have been taught for decades now not to take candy from strangers, not to go near stranger's cars, esspecially if they want directions or are offering candy or toys. When they are teaching this they can just as easily teach that you shouldn't tell people online where you live, or what you look like. Kids have been learning for decades that no one should touch you in the places that your swimsuit covers, and if someone does, they need to tell a trusted adult. They should also learn now that if someone tries to talk to them about those areas, or other inappropriate things, and if someone does so online (or in the real world, for that matter) they need to tell a trusted adult. Kids have been learning for decades that if an adult tells you to keep things a secret from your parents, something is wrong and you need to tell your parents. Teach them that this goes doubly online.
There's already programs in place, they just need to expand. Get the word out in the same way -- through schools, through extra-curricular activities (scouts, etc), through daycares, through commercials during children's television shows, through kids shows themselves, through children's reading materials.
How many kids do you know, in the United States, will take candy from strangers by the time they are in first grade or so?
It works, with or without parents input.
There are other things besides chat and games online. There's plenty that one can do that doens't ever show the intelligence or maturity of the user. Browing slashdot, but not commenting, for instance.
Kids, in my experience, can be quite intelligent and mature on moment and not the next. It's amazing how, in some age groups, a little adult supervision reinforces the intelligent and mature behavior and minizes the not so intelligent, not so mature behavior. Also, an otherwise intelligent and mature child, a child who can go into a chat room or email conversation and say useful, insightful things, in a polite manner, may not yet have the judgement to know what should and should not be said in terms of identifying information, or when it's safe to meet people in real life and when it's not. (If I had a twelve year old -- or even a yougner child -- who wanted to go to a local LUG meeting, I'd take them, and stay there with them. No problem. Meeting the random guy who's been flirting with them. Hell no!)
It's not a "no supervision or not at all" proposition at all.
If you're allowing your 12 year old to chat online without at least some supervision from a trusted adult (you, her other parent/gaurdian if she has one, trusted friend of yours, teachers, etc) then I'd question your wisdom.
Beyond that, a 12 year old should probably have at least some working idea of what a pedophile is. Even the very small special needs kids my partner works with know that a pedophile is someone who hurts kids. They don't need details, and it would be inappropriate to tell them much more than that. For a 12 year old (assuming she doesn't have significant language delay, developmental delay or some other complication), she should probably know at least the basics on what sex is (where babies come from, and at least some of the emotional implications -- intimacy, betrayal -- esspecially getting pregnant and being abandoned or getting an STD, *esspecially* an incurable one like HIV, HPV, Herpes or some forms of Hepetitis -- etc), she's going to hit puberty pretty soon if she hasn't already. Belive me, you would far rather be explaining this now then explaining in two years when she's puking every morning and hasn't had her period in three months. You, as a responsible parent, will actually take the time to find accurate information and pass that on. Her friends and future boyfriends most likely won't. So it's probably age appropriate to tell her that a pedophile is an adult who wants to have sex with children, and it's only appropriate for adults to have sex with other adults. Children shoudln't be having sex. It can be harmful to them, physically and emotionally, for the rest of their lives. Unless there is some underlying complication, a 12 year old can understand this.
Obviously, as a parent you have the right to tell or not tell your child whatever you want. You can tell her that charging across busy streets without looking both ways first and ignoring her education in favor of watching television all day is a good idea. But I don't recommend it.
As far as lying and trust on line. Have you taught your daughter that everyone she meets in the real world is safe and to be trusted? I hope not. She should no more trust the random stranger at the supermarket, or the random stranger who walks up your driveway and asks her directions, than anyone online. The online dangers are pretty much only extensions of the dangers of the real world. The biggest difference I see is that parents today grew up with the real world dangers. They know the dangers and teach their children to recognize them: don't go with strangers, even if they offer you candy, want you to help find their puppy or want directions; don't let anyone touch you in your 'swimsuit areas' (or whatever wording you choose). Parents today didn't (with a few exceptions, who mostly are too young to have teens just yet). They don't know (unless they educate themselves) what the dangers are and how to alert their kids to them.
If I were twelve, and someone were telling me that everyone in the real world could be trusted, but absolutely no one online could be trusted, that all were 'liars and losers', I'd probably question their judgement too. If someone told me this *now* I'd question their judgement.
Kids aren't (for the most part) stupid. Kids are born ignorant, some say innocent, but whichever you choose, they can only change this through learning. They can only learn if their parents both teach them and give them opportunity to learn.
And yes, I am a parent.
It doesn't challenge my common sense, and here's why:
;)
very near to 100% of my female friends were sexually abused as children. Last I checked I had three female friends who hadn't been. I was sexually abused as a child. I've spent years dealing with this crap from several angles.
By sexual abuse I mean sexually penetrated by an adult, nearly always male, most commonly a father, but uncles, much older brothers, babysitters, mothers, grandmothers, teachers and grandfathers have done such things to my friends.
Now, I *don't* think that this means that 100% of people (or near to it) were sexually abused as children. I do think that people (like you) who think "That stat can't be right because 27%/16%/21% of my friends haven't been sexually abused as children" have a few things going on that you probably aren't aware of.
First, sexual abuse is not something most people (there are certainly exceptions to this rule) are going to tell just anyone and everyone. Chances are you know at least a few people who have been sexually abused who haven't told you. Incidently, the stigma of telling is *much* higher for males. But it's pretty high for females, as well. Part of this is societal. Part of this is that secrecy, and threats made in order to continue this secrecy, are a very common componant of abuse (i.e. I'll kill your dog/CPS will take you away to an orphanage/I'll hurt mommy/Daddy will think you're a bad girl/Everyone will know that you're a sick boy who is obsessed with sex if you tell) and it's *hard* to talk about it, for a lot of people, a lot of the time.
Second, sexual abuse survivors have a tendency to become friends with other survivors or with abusers (who have at least sometimes, and possibly often, been abused themselves at some prior time). Thing about (for example) being a geek. Chances are, your friends are more likely to be geeks than not to be. When you have friends who aren't geeks, unless you have some other non-geek interest, you find that they lack a frame of reference for discussing most of what you're interested in, and very likely vice versa as well. Same problem, only that those who grow up with chronic sexual abuse (as opposed to limited incidents) or in an otherwise abusive family have a completely different learned set of social skills and expectations of the reactions of others. These things can be un/re-learned, but it takes time.
Incidently, the only polls I know of that count anything like bra snapping (sexuality-related teasing from other kids) as sexual abuse have reults that run higher than 50%, not 27%.
My guess if that one counted bra snapping, it would be close to 90%
Theoretically most of the time you can tell fault in any type of traffic accident by looking at how the cars hit.
I know the differences between traffic circles and roundabouts. OTOH, at least I've never seen anyone try to go the wrong way in a DC traffic circle (which is more than I can say for the roundabouts I've seen here).
I don't know about the ones in florida, I've seen them in california and in the DC suburbs and Philly suburbs, and seen entirely too many people think that the appropriate way to make a left turn is to left turn into the circle (even with a big honking arrow pointing to the right. why are people so dumb!!!)
And then there's the folks who can't figure out the whole right-of-way thing (happily nearly thwacking the person actually in the circle)
I don't know. Maybe we (Americans) should stop using the whole "Driving is a privilege not a right" thing to actually stop people from driving if they are too stupid/ignorant, rather thna using it as an excuse to take away driver's licenses for smoking in high school and such.
oh. D'oh!!!
(note to self: engage brain before posting)
It was on the bus (they asked for ID at the terminals, too, but that's normal, in my experience).
I've never heard that it's illegal for them to ask for ID -- they've essentially always asked me for ID when buying tickets with cash (they've forgotten a few times, or maybe they knew me, since I was doing the short run every week or so, but for all the long runs I've done they've asked me for ID) for as long as I've been riding greyhound (five years or so) but I've always had some sort of appropriate ID so I don't know if they would have given me trouble if I refused. AFAIK greyhound busses (terminals, etc) are more-or-less private property, so they have the right to kick you off if you refuse to follow any of their rules, including refusing to show ID (they kicked a guy off while my partner was riding last week -- in the middle of nowhere! For having lost his ticket stub, apparently. I've seen them kick people off for drinking alcohol, in the middle of nowhere, even, but you'd think that if the guy had had the stub when they left hte last stop, they could have at least waited until the next stop!)
One of the new things they have implemented is some sort of bus police/security folks. I don't know the legal standing of these folks (security gaurds? police? something else?) but they search the busses and the lugguage and do metal scans. It's much more like airport security these days.
Have you traveled greyhound since 9/11?
My partner did, last week, due to a death in the family. Every hour or two, all night, they'd wake everyone up, check tickets, check IDs. ID best match your ticket. (They were looking at baggage as well)
Let me guess, you're not a USian.
Why do I guess this? Because, if you were, you'd know that the average USian is just dumb enough not to know which way to go in a roundabout/traffic circle.
This is bad enough in places like Washington DC (where there are a number of traffic circles and have been literally since the city was designed a couple hundred years ago), in places where they've put them in in the last ten years, forget about it! USian drivers + traffic circle = very very scary.
There's some argument here about not letting people drive unless they are intelligent enough to understand that traffic circle = counter clockwise, but...
they don't ask me to make the rules
> BTW I was told that research at the University of
> Quito has shown that the Foucault Pendulum doesn't
> work
Seems to work okay for the Smithsonian
A theory must be falsifiable, so I guess, in that sense, if a theory is proven false (i.e. if the theory is "The cat will always go to her food when coming in from outside" and the cat is observed going to the bed instead, it has been proven false) it's false, but more correctly,, since a theory is an *explantion* it's *wrong*. It cannot be proven to be true. It can be supported by observation. It can be generally accepted (the theory of gravity, for example) but it can't be considered true in the way an observation is true or false (I either observed the cat go to her food at 3:40pm today, or I didn't).
Some reading for you:
This
this and
this
Specifically on evolution. When people say 'the theory of evolution' they usually mean one of two things:
1. The theory that states that over generations, through natural selection, species change to better fit their environment. This one has a great deal of evidence supporting it. It's extremely hard to argue against this one. I don't bother. As far as I can tell there are no glaring inconsistancies and it's about as close to correct as we can get right now.
2. The theory that humans evolved from the same predecessor as non-human primates. This one is a bit more interesting. There's lots of evidence for: physical and genetic similarities between humans and non-human primates. But we're missing the 'missing link'. While it is, to me, far more likely that humans evolved over eons than that some outside force (god? aliens?) zapped some poor unsuspecting monkey into the first human being, we don't have enough fossil evidence (or other evidence) to show that this didn't happen. My personal opinion is that this is the most likely theory, but that data could come up, even within my lifetime that suggests otherwise.
Incidently, I don't belive in god or creationism but I'd rather talk to people who have a well reasoned response for why they don't think the theory of evolution (either version) is correct then people who parrot it as gospel without thinking.
Hear hear! If I had points, I'd mod you up, since I don't, I'll just heartily agree.
Except that I'm not sure it's possible to teach kids (or anyone) to think. It's possible to encourage them to think. It's possible to model good critical thinking skills. It's possible to discuss and perhaps even partially codify good critical thinking skills, but I don't think it's anymore possible to teach a kid thinking skills then it is to teach them to appreciate music.
And it's even harder to test them on it.
How does that show that the original poster lacks scientific knowledge?
The theory of evolution is just that, a *theory*. Theories are, by definition, neither true nor false. They can be supported by evidence or disproved by evidence, but they cannot be declared true or false.
I think your response shows *your* ignorance of science.
I found the CNN write up to be interesting, but I'm wondering about the study methodology. How did they choose their sample? What sort of answers were allowed? Anyone know where I can get more indepth info?
For instance, CNN mentions that a substantial percentage of Americans read the local astrology column on a regular basis. Does this mean that those people belive in astrology? Or does this simply mean that a substantial percentage of folks read the astrology column for the same reason that I read the personals column of the local rag when I get a hold of the hardcopy version -- entertainment. I don't plan on calling anyone, heck, most of the papers I read on any sort of regular basis don't have anything resembling a 'poly-transmen seeking similar' section, and I know well enough that the vast majority of those in the 'seeking men' or 'seeking women' sections aren't going to react positively to, well, me. But I read it because it amuses me to see what other humans say about themselves, and I read the astrology column for the same reason, because it's a way to gather information on more 'normal' humans.
Or, another place where I'd like to see methology is the "ESP exists" question. I am well aware of the view of mainstream scientists' views this topic. I'm aware of quite a bit of research on it. I believe that for the most part they are correct. I also have a friend who has the most uncanny knack for showing up for homecooked dinners at my household, where both the time and content of dinner ought to be used for a rand function. How does he know to get on the road a good hour before we even realize that we're not going to order out or do leftovers or skip dinner altogther (very common)? Granted, this is nowhere near telepathy or spoon bending, and there may be a very logical explanation we have all overlooked (but some pretty intelligent geeks have been pondering this for seven years, you'd think we woulda figured it out by now). I don't *know* that is ESP. The most intellectually honest position I can come up with on that and a few other things that I am personally aware of is "I don't know." And that is my position.
Was "I don't know" an option?
This is the problem I see with the state of science in this country. Not only do people not have the first clue about the scientific process, but they also haven't got a clue about the difference between a fact and a theory. There's an argument that can be made that this starts out in school: how many of us remember hearing "It's a scientific fact that..."? But it's seen in media and in general conversation as well.
Science is made up of theories, some are more widely accepted as others, but all could be invalidated or significantly revised if data is found that contradicts them.
And those theories are only as good as the data they are based on. How many people noticed the glaring jump in logic on the astrology issue in the CNN writeup -- that since n% of people read the astrology column, that same n% must believe in astrology? How many people wondered if the same jump in logic was found in the study themselves?
The root of science is not found in being able to parrot the theory of relativity, or even being able to understand it at some level. The root of science is found in critical thinking, it all grow up from there.
If we *really* wanted to improve science knowledge in this country, we'd encourage everybody, esspecially children (it's far easier to learn this as a child) to learn to think critically. As a society we are rather unprepared to do this. Most americans don't know how to think critically, thus they cannot teach their children this skill. Even if we could do so, a critically thinking populous would undermine our government and our economy. While I think that both would probably be replaced by something better, since government and corporations have the most control over the resources in this country, and government has the most control over resources going to education, and those in power now have nothing to gain and everything to lose from changing the current government and economy, I doubt that this will change anytime soon.
As an individual I can learn to think critically, I can value intellectual honesty, and I can encourage my children and any other children and adults I come into contact with to do the same. And so I encourage everyone who reads this to do so. But that's all I can do. I don't know if this is ever going to be useful in a widespread manner, but perhaps it will be useful to others as individuals (and perhaps you'll find that it sucks. Often I do)
Hear hear!
;)
Been there, done that. Found another IT position that doens't require a beeper (yay!) and seriously considering moving into programming.
I guess my only major thought on programming being a burn-out-prone, dead-end job is that, to a certain extent, all jobs can be. Yes, even that 'dream job' that you just thought up. It depends on the person. It depends on the circumstance. Personally, I doubt I'll ever spent more than ten years in any given specialty. Thus far, I've spent three years as a PC tech, two years as tech support, four years as a sysadmin and one month as an IDS analyst. I figure I've got a few more years doing that, a few (maybe a decade) years programming, then it's time to either go to college (I haven't done that yet, really, just a bit here and there) and do something else (I have a short list of 'something elses' that I'd like to pursue, we'll see which one I choose). As someone who never ever wants to be a manager (the only exception is if I own my own business -- probably a small farm -- and that's rather different from being a middle manager somewhere), and as someone who has a good forty years before retirement, at least (I'm 24, as of tomorrow), I think that the only real alternative is to accept that the old model (one career your entire working life) is more-or-less dead and create a new one. Build on what you know, find ways of applying your old knowledge to new things, and don't stop learning. Prevents burnout,
prevents boredom.
Thus far it's working pretty well. Ask me in 40 years, though
Yup. And they don't care if the reason you broke that screwdriver is because you thought it would make a great prybar, or you were using it to drive out a bearing race.
But even better, if you find (in a junk pile, in a thirft store, in a pawn shop, doesn't matter) a craftsman tool that is rusted to hell, broken or both, you can haul it to sears and they'll give you a new one.
Truly wonderful, those things are.
I recognize that this is an attempt at humour, but seriously: on some roads, driving the speed limit is dangerous. First, because the flow of traffic is 10-15 mph higher than the posted speed limit (this is typical of the DC beltway at certain hours) and this is not a safe condition to be driving in, and second because it can really piss off people (I've been sideswiped for going the speed limit. no joke. I've seen others sideswiped for the same thing. Of course, in philly, I once saw someone side swipe an old woman for actually stopping at a stop light, so...road rage is too frequent, certainly).
My biggest problem on the beltway has been figuring out where the happy medium is -- that speed at which I'm not risking the wrath or momentary non-watchfulness of another driver (which runs sixty five or seventy at times) but not risking the wrath of the cops (when the posted limit is 55) -- or, for that matter, that speed on those nice winding local roads where I don't feel safe because *I* don't drive that road every day, but the bastard behind me is flashing his lights, honking his horn and then passing me in an unsafe manner (perhaps with a feint at a side swipe) even though I'm already five miles over the posted limit.
I don't know. I think that 'safe speed' is something the average american doesn't get. they're too used to posted arbitrary speed limits that don't even get read, half the time.
rant over.