Actually, "spelt" is perfectly correct and current English, outside of the United States - along with "tyre," "colour," and "homogenise." Have a look at Merriam Webster's Dictionary site.
Those darn Americans. But the United States is so big! How can it NOT be the entire universe?
Among the "bells and whistles" you speak of is the ability to communicate more than ever before. If anything, that's been the revolution - just like the printing press, the telegraph and the telephone.
I actually read the article, and I found it quite humorous. Especially the last one:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of sXXXch, or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances."
There's a huge misunderstanding here, though, that most people don't seem to see.
Congress shall make no law...
I don't get you people here on Slashdot sometimes. Since when was Netnanny, Surfwatch, Cybersitter, N2H2, Wisechoice, or your employer or school "Congress?" I don't see congress making any laws about having to use censorware.
If you have a beef about censorware, take it up with the censorware people or the people that implemented it. (By the way, I think censorware is quite stupid.) Don't take it up with "Congress." That's not who did it, and they don't have the power to stop the people that do.
"Oh, but they're taking away our freedom of speech!" Well, they're not. They're limiting your hearing of it. Who has the inalienable right to be heard? (And no, it doesn't amount to the same thing.)
Anyway, to sum up: censorware is not in violation of the constitution, and Congress has no power to limit it. It's stupid, but please understand that nobody is trampling on your rights.
Of course, the name of the game might be "Get in the Market Quickly," and in that case, they would want to make a Linux DVD player if they had any sense. id Software pulled even, and the Linux market is growing. The OS/2 market isn't growing, so it's not exactly a good comparison.
Is it just me or do you have an acute fear of democracy ?
No fear of democracy here, but I don't think that's what you're really talking about. (A household should never be a democracy.) It seems like you're talking about education.
In my religion, we have a saying: Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it. "Train up" entails a whole lot of education by words and example, and by rules and discipline. One of a parent's greatest duties to his children is to discipline - which, in its best form, is nothing more than speeding up the consequences for actions that would be detrimental to the child in the long run. I think you may have understood my usage of "control" in a different way than I do. The child should be free to act (not free of consequenses), unless the child, through making bad choices, loses his right to make those bad choices. In that case, it means making (oh, *gasp*) a child do or not do something. (Isn't that a long-term effect of bad choices in life anyway? As parents, we speed it up.)
why should you impose preferences upon your child ?
"Impose?" Well, I don't think I could do that if I tried. If we replace "impose preferences upon your child" to "teach correct principles to your child," that's a question with an easy answer. It's because I'm a happy person, and I'd like the same for her. Besides, if I don't, whose preferences or principles will she get?
but protecting someone doesn't mean locking them up in a steel cage and keeping the evil out.
I don't recall mentioning that at all. But now, since I'm found out, I'll have to confess...
It is far more effective to educate and let the child protect him/herself with their newfound wisdom.
Three things (at least) are involved in this education: instruction, example, and practice.
Kids are typically quite bright but the traditional form of parental guidance usually incites the child to learn how to work around the rules instead of making the rules work for them.
Oh, don't worry. My children will know why every rule exists, and what it's for. I assume that you assume "traditional" to mean "because I said so." That would never have worked with me when I was a child, and I don't expect it to work with my children.
They're "lost" because they've suddenly been struck with a load of responsibility that they were never prepared for.
I agree wholeheartedly.
...stripped of their parental blanket...
It almost sounds like you think they shouldn't have had it in the first place. They need it during the time that they're practicing making good decisions, and then they need it less and less. To never protect them with it is to let them receive the brunt of all decision making when they're not even close to ready. What kind of decisions can my 4 1/2-month-old make? Not many - mostly whether or not she's going to be fussy when she's hungry or tired, and whether or not she's going to go to sleep. And if a four-year-old can't decide what he wants for breakfast without lots of help and suggestions, what else can you expect from him? I don't expect children to be able to make moral decisions completely on their own very well until they're at least ten. Even that may be stretching it.
I don't think that blanket-stripping is the biggest problem. I think that too many of them don't ever get it, or instruction. Putting too much emphasis on either is a bad thing, but leaving a child with neither is much, much worse.
I find it somewhat amusing that people try to use age limiting ratings as such firm barrier against corruption. They assume that you restrict your child to certain material for 17 years of their life, and then suddenly they're mature enough to deal with it on their own when they hit that magic birthday (be it 13, 18, etc..). I don't know about you, but I don't recall a "sensitivity and impressionability" switch being turned over when I hit a certain age.
That's not why.
When I worked as a lifeguard (yes, I had a very nice tan once), we had a rule that nobody under the age of 16 was allowed in the hot tub. Why? Was 16 some kind of magic age where you could climb in and not get boiled to death? No, not really. It was completely arbitrary, but it was a good rule anyway. First, young children generally shouldn't be in 100+ degree water. Second, if the rule didn't exist, there would be overcrowding and fighting over whose turn it was. Someone just happened to draw the line at the magical age of 16.
There is no switch. I'm just as sensitive now as I was when I was 14, but probably less impressionable. (Impressionability drops over time.) I don't watch R-rated movies (none - that's really true), and I only get ESRB 17 games if I can turn off the guts (/com_blood 0, for example). Why? Well, why should I let that into my mind, when that brain of mine records everything I've ever seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt, and thought and tends to bring up the worst things at the worst times? Can you imagine what it's like to hold your baby daughter while she's crying her brains out, and the only thing you can think of is something violent because that's all you've exposed to your mind for the last two hours? I don't like being in that position, ever.
My point is that there is a time when a person should no longer be under parental control for certain things, and the Powers That Be have made an arbitrary decision - 17. At that time, because it's the law, I'll let my daughter choose for herself those certain things. Hopefully, she'll choose like I have, and keep her mind from being cluttered with unnecessary garbage. Until then, I appreciate whatever help I can get.
Senior citizens aren't getting attention because of who they vote for. They're getting attention simply because they vote!
If we, with the same interests, represent a large enough demographic, they have to start paying attention to us to get our vote no matter who they are.
Actually, I've been watching it for a while now, and taking note. It should be interesting. Of course, the right doesn't know what's left anymore, either. It seems that every century or so, right and left trade places...
BTW - I'm a conservative, and I think Free Software is great.
I hate Paul Harvey for that exact reason. He'll start off on some scientific discovery, and then, before you know it, he's giving you a line about how some miracle drug fixes whatever problem was discovered. You get no clue that he's trying to sell you something on behalf of something else.
Same here. I can't count the number of times I've had to tell salesmen to bug off because I get what they sell from the Internet. We still get those stupid free ones, though, and they just pile up outside the front door...
My children will know very well what's private and what's not. For the most part, they'll have privacy. If things get out of hand, nothing is private for a minor. (Notice it works like that in the justice system for adults, too? Nice model, I think.)
I've got a kid (one so far, probably more later) who is going to be surfing the web in a few years. I'd like to let her surf, but I don't trust a kid (even my own, as good as she is) any farther than I can throw her. I have a Linux firewall running IP masquerade, and I know how to dump all web access to a file and examine it in a cron job for offensive language like you describe and alert me if it finds any - not block it. (The kid lives in my house you know - she's not going anywhere, and I can talk to her the next day.) I don't look at p0rn and I don't participate in practices usually considered to be perverse, so I have no idea what the words could be. Where would I get a nice list?;)
Granted, I probably won't enjoy reading it, but I may need it in the future...
Seriously, though, could someone point me in the right place?
Slashdot Mirror
or it would have to include its full address (company.road.zipcode.country.tm)
Probably not. What if you relocate? What if you have multiple sites? Also, the idea that you're accessible from anywhere also goes down the toilet.
Personally, I like the idea of having infinite TLD's with no ownership. That's way cool, and I wish I had thought of it.
Good point. I wish I were a moderator today.
By the way, my dad's a meteorologist, and he thinks it's pretty much BS, too. That's not to say that we shouldn't keep it clean, though.
Read this comment, above. It points out very well that the "digital divide" has much less to do with money, and more to do with education.
Mine doesn't.
Thank you.
Try this.
It's under construction. Scary, no?
Actually, "spelt" is perfectly correct and current English, outside of the United States - along with "tyre," "colour," and "homogenise." Have a look at Merriam Webster's Dictionary site.
Those darn Americans. But the United States is so big! How can it NOT be the entire universe?
Well, I think they speak Nether. Or was it Hollish?
You posted at +1? Wow, you're brave - for a dumb, loud American.
If you really wanted to know, it's Norwegian.
Among the "bells and whistles" you speak of is the ability to communicate more than ever before. If anything, that's been the revolution - just like the printing press, the telegraph and the telephone.
I actually read the article, and I found it quite humorous. Especially the last one:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of sXXXch, or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances."
There's a huge misunderstanding here, though, that most people don't seem to see.
Congress shall make no law...
I don't get you people here on Slashdot sometimes. Since when was Netnanny, Surfwatch, Cybersitter, N2H2, Wisechoice, or your employer or school "Congress?" I don't see congress making any laws about having to use censorware.
If you have a beef about censorware, take it up with the censorware people or the people that implemented it. (By the way, I think censorware is quite stupid.) Don't take it up with "Congress." That's not who did it, and they don't have the power to stop the people that do.
"Oh, but they're taking away our freedom of speech!" Well, they're not. They're limiting your hearing of it. Who has the inalienable right to be heard? (And no, it doesn't amount to the same thing.)
Anyway, to sum up: censorware is not in violation of the constitution, and Congress has no power to limit it. It's stupid, but please understand that nobody is trampling on your rights.
Nah - way less than half. That's why I buy my stuff six months after it's new - it usually takes about six months for these things to halve in price.
Of course, the name of the game might be "Get in the Market Quickly," and in that case, they would want to make a Linux DVD player if they had any sense. id Software pulled even, and the Linux market is growing. The OS/2 market isn't growing, so it's not exactly a good comparison.
Hey, it was a joke, okay?
Is it just me or do you have an acute fear of democracy ?
...stripped of their parental blanket...
No fear of democracy here, but I don't think that's what you're really talking about. (A household should never be a democracy.) It seems like you're talking about education.
In my religion, we have a saying: Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it. "Train up" entails a whole lot of education by words and example, and by rules and discipline. One of a parent's greatest duties to his children is to discipline - which, in its best form, is nothing more than speeding up the consequences for actions that would be detrimental to the child in the long run. I think you may have understood my usage of "control" in a different way than I do. The child should be free to act (not free of consequenses), unless the child, through making bad choices, loses his right to make those bad choices. In that case, it means making (oh, *gasp*) a child do or not do something. (Isn't that a long-term effect of bad choices in life anyway? As parents, we speed it up.)
why should you impose preferences upon your child ?
"Impose?" Well, I don't think I could do that if I tried. If we replace "impose preferences upon your child" to "teach correct principles to your child," that's a question with an easy answer. It's because I'm a happy person, and I'd like the same for her. Besides, if I don't, whose preferences or principles will she get?
but protecting someone doesn't mean locking them up in a steel cage and keeping the evil out.
I don't recall mentioning that at all. But now, since I'm found out, I'll have to confess...
It is far more effective to educate and let the child protect him/herself with their newfound wisdom.
Three things (at least) are involved in this education: instruction, example, and practice.
Kids are typically quite bright but the traditional form of parental guidance usually incites the child to learn how to work around the rules instead of making the rules work for them.
Oh, don't worry. My children will know why every rule exists, and what it's for. I assume that you assume "traditional" to mean "because I said so." That would never have worked with me when I was a child, and I don't expect it to work with my children.
They're "lost" because they've suddenly been struck with a load of responsibility that they were never prepared for.
I agree wholeheartedly.
It almost sounds like you think they shouldn't have had it in the first place. They need it during the time that they're practicing making good decisions, and then they need it less and less. To never protect them with it is to let them receive the brunt of all decision making when they're not even close to ready. What kind of decisions can my 4 1/2-month-old make? Not many - mostly whether or not she's going to be fussy when she's hungry or tired, and whether or not she's going to go to sleep. And if a four-year-old can't decide what he wants for breakfast without lots of help and suggestions, what else can you expect from him? I don't expect children to be able to make moral decisions completely on their own very well until they're at least ten. Even that may be stretching it.
I don't think that blanket-stripping is the biggest problem. I think that too many of them don't ever get it, or instruction. Putting too much emphasis on either is a bad thing, but leaving a child with neither is much, much worse.
I find it somewhat amusing that people try to use age limiting ratings as such firm barrier against corruption. They assume that you restrict your child to certain material for 17 years of their life, and then suddenly they're mature enough to deal with it on their own when they hit that magic birthday (be it 13, 18, etc..). I don't know about you, but I don't recall a "sensitivity and impressionability" switch being turned over when I hit a certain age.
That's not why.
When I worked as a lifeguard (yes, I had a very nice tan once), we had a rule that nobody under the age of 16 was allowed in the hot tub. Why? Was 16 some kind of magic age where you could climb in and not get boiled to death? No, not really. It was completely arbitrary, but it was a good rule anyway. First, young children generally shouldn't be in 100+ degree water. Second, if the rule didn't exist, there would be overcrowding and fighting over whose turn it was. Someone just happened to draw the line at the magical age of 16.
There is no switch. I'm just as sensitive now as I was when I was 14, but probably less impressionable. (Impressionability drops over time.) I don't watch R-rated movies (none - that's really true), and I only get ESRB 17 games if I can turn off the guts (/com_blood 0, for example). Why? Well, why should I let that into my mind, when that brain of mine records everything I've ever seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt, and thought and tends to bring up the worst things at the worst times? Can you imagine what it's like to hold your baby daughter while she's crying her brains out, and the only thing you can think of is something violent because that's all you've exposed to your mind for the last two hours? I don't like being in that position, ever.
My point is that there is a time when a person should no longer be under parental control for certain things, and the Powers That Be have made an arbitrary decision - 17. At that time, because it's the law, I'll let my daughter choose for herself those certain things. Hopefully, she'll choose like I have, and keep her mind from being cluttered with unnecessary garbage. Until then, I appreciate whatever help I can get.
For who?
For anybody!
Senior citizens aren't getting attention because of who they vote for. They're getting attention simply because they vote!
If we, with the same interests, represent a large enough demographic, they have to start paying attention to us to get our vote no matter who they are.
In fact, the idea that you DON'T get the source code is newer than completely closed source projects.
Hear, hear. Why does nobody ever bring this up? The open source "movement" is no less than a return to our roots...
Heck, how do people think we got Unix?
It's funny because it'll never happen.
Right?
Right?...
You think drugs make the people more powerful? Forget it. Even the painkiller my dentist gave me removed from me about 1/4 of my self-control.
Mastery of self is power, not abuse of self.
That's a really interesing mental image I got just now. Thanks. ;)
Only a corporation could be capable of such a contortion...
Actually, I've been watching it for a while now, and taking note. It should be interesting. Of course, the right doesn't know what's left anymore, either. It seems that every century or so, right and left trade places...
BTW - I'm a conservative, and I think Free Software is great.
I hate Paul Harvey for that exact reason. He'll start off on some scientific discovery, and then, before you know it, he's giving you a line about how some miracle drug fixes whatever problem was discovered. You get no clue that he's trying to sell you something on behalf of something else.
Anyway, it bugs me.
Same here. I can't count the number of times I've had to tell salesmen to bug off because I get what they sell from the Internet. We still get those stupid free ones, though, and they just pile up outside the front door...
We need a moderation for "Funny Sig."
My children will know very well what's private and what's not. For the most part, they'll have privacy. If things get out of hand, nothing is private for a minor. (Notice it works like that in the justice system for adults, too? Nice model, I think.)
Okay, really interesting question for y'all:
;)
I've got a kid (one so far, probably more later) who is going to be surfing the web in a few years. I'd like to let her surf, but I don't trust a kid (even my own, as good as she is) any farther than I can throw her. I have a Linux firewall running IP masquerade, and I know how to dump all web access to a file and examine it in a cron job for offensive language like you describe and alert me if it finds any - not block it. (The kid lives in my house you know - she's not going anywhere, and I can talk to her the next day.) I don't look at p0rn and I don't participate in practices usually considered to be perverse, so I have no idea what the words could be. Where would I get a nice list?
Granted, I probably won't enjoy reading it, but I may need it in the future...
Seriously, though, could someone point me in the right place?