why ban either when the solution is clearly to develop a way to regulate world temperature - if we could get the climate down to absolute zero, all motion would stop and terrorists would be unable to act...
Sometimes, I start to think that parents don't want the responsibility that comes with raising their children. It's bad enough that property owners have to pay for their schooling (the farm I grew up next to paid eight times as much in property taxes than my parents. My parents had three kids in school - the farm had zero...)
But now, the cry is to "protect the children" whenever something that even remotely related to kids comes up. Why the hell should anyone rely on the government to protect their children?
In a way, I really can't blame parents for trying to dish off the responsibility of raising their children to the government... They pay so much in taxes that there is little left for them to spend on raising a healthy family.
BUT, pushing the responsibility to the gov't is still a bad move... You can't legislate against stupidity - someone is always going to do something stupid - THEN they should have to pay the consequences - which may be just dealing with the result of whatever stupid act they committed...
Parents should be taking responsibility for raising their children - Find out what your kids are watching - find out what they're reading - parent in a way that inspires your child to trust you enough to want to confide in you... Punishing your children (the same way that the gov't punishes it's subjects) isn't going to teach them to be better people - Teach them to use their own minds and to make their own decisions.
A group of strict rules made up arbitrarily aren't going to help things. That's exactly what the gov't is attempting to do with their "protect the children" legislation...
Perhaps, instead of trying to address the issue with "reform" of the public school environment, we should consider the system itself. What I mean is, is it really wise to force children to attend classes - classes they perhaps have no interest in attending?
Often times, as I'm sure readers of Slashdot know, it's the kids who are actually doing their school work and learning who are targeted. Why the hell are the kids that aren't interested in being there allowed to co-exist in the same environment as those who are?
One potential solution to consider is just to privatize schools as a whole. If parents have to pay for their children's education (what a wacky idea...) - perhaps they'll take a more proactive role in making sure their children are getting the most out of their education - and in turn that the parents themselves are getting the most out of their dollar.
A school that doesn't have to keep misbehaved kids as students (due to compulsory education laws) wouldn't think twice about expelling someone who was disrupting the education of the others. The parents wouldn't be willing to pay for an education that was continually interrupted by those who aren't interested in learning... And the parents of those who were misbehaved would have two choices - either straighten their kids out, or find someone to help them - a military school, perhaps?
I grew up in a town with a single private and a single public school. I had friends in both, and I must say that I really don't recall ever hearing about misbehaved kids in the private school. Coincidence? Maybe - I'd be interested in hearing from people who are the product of private schools who were bullied or who witnessed bullying...
Anyway - getting back to privatizing the American school system... This is may be an unrealistic goal to aim for, as this would mean that the politicians would no longer have control over what American children are being taught. They could potentially view this as a threat to their positions. As soon as the first generation of privately educated children mature to voting age... well you get the picture... It's hard to imagine a private school graduate who can't understand a simple butterfly ballot...
But - what do I know? After all, I graduated from a public school with a bunch of students who couldn't read, much less understand that competition in ANY industry (including education) would lead to a higher quality product overall...
And if you get in trouble for having those Limp Bizkit tunes in your public directory, well, that's your own problem too. You are allowing the general public to pirate copyrighted tunes off your hard drive -- no matter if your own MP3 copies are perfectly legal.
Could someone please explain to me why the hell it's illeagal to make something available to someone else? Isn't the crime in actually taking it?
If I were to leave the door to my house unlocked, and someone came in and recorded all of the videos in my VHS collection, and left without harming a single thing in my house, have I committed a crime? What if I told this person that the door would be unlocked? What if I gave the person a list of the movies in my collection and gave them a key to my house?
If that's not enough to make someone think twice about this file sharing thing, what about the case where I own or have developed or whatever, the technology to rip a couple of mp3's from my CD collection - all of which were obtained legally... Then, I send these mp3's to my best friend, who has also purchased the same CDs, but doesn't have a working CD drive in his machine (ok, this is highly unlikely, but still possible)... Was a crime committed?
As for the "monitoring software"...
If I were to post a sign on my door saying that it was unlocked and anyone who wanted to come in and copy my VHS collection should do so, I'd be a complete moron if I thought that there wouldn't be people there just to see what I had.
Personally, I really don't care if someone wants to monitor my downloads et.al.- anyone who wants to badly enough is going to get their way. Next time you're browsing in the local bookstore, are you going to be looking around frantically for someone watching to see what you're looking at?
Everyone seems to be overreacting to this "on-line privacy" thing - if you want privacy, you're going to have to work for it... Use a library computer, a co-worker's, your neighbor's - whatever. If you want privacy, the oness is on YOU and YOU ALONE. Don't start whining about how you're the powerless victim - TAKE YOUR BOX OFF THE WEB if you can't come up with a better way...
If you don't understand how to use PGP, stop whining about Carnivore, or whatever other "radical" privacy invasion tools the government is comming up with. The only way you're going to be able to keep your stuff private is if you do just as much work as the people interested in your private stuff.
Cordless phones allowed for the possibility of someone monitoring your phone conversations - now we've got 9 GHz phones - impossible to monitor? Probably not in the long run, but you'll just have to buy a better phone when it becomes possible...
Alternativly , you could just stop talking... Likewise, just stop using P2P systems if you're hung up on the fact that someone somewhere may be able to find out what you're essentially broadcasting to the entire f***ing planet...
If you could be so kind to name a single piece of legislation that solved the problems it was meant to address and didn't create others...
What's that? You can't?
Any time government has gotten involved with ANYTHING from pollution, currency, privacy, even the size of holes in Swiss cheese, no net good has resulted.
The government can't deliver our mail on time, can't educate our children, can't keep the roads in good condition (did you know the federal budget allocates enough money to federal highway upkeep each year to pay to pave a single lane of each Interstate in GOLD??) - why would anyone in their right mind trust them to "regulate" the internet, open source, et. al. ??
The only thing the politicians are good at is in being politicians - they don't have the experience or knowledge necessary to get involved with any aspect of the internet.
Christ, Al Gore thinks he invented it, the court system seems to think that file sharing "technologies" are going to put authors / artists out of business (why didn't the Xerox machine, VCR, tape deck, CDR, or even the pencil, for that matter, put these people out of business? They ADAPTED!) and Busch decided he's not going to even use e-mail because of an obvious violation of the fourth amendment...
Let's keep the government out of our lives and our paychecks (I for one am sick of having a portion of my paycheck allocated to fighting and supporting people on different sides of the same issue - it happens with tobacco, the EPA, the IRS etc.)
The D's and R's have simply been bickering over who gets to choose how your money is spent. Screw them both - vote Libertarian
Get that dude on your buddy list and it greatly expands your music selection.
Right, but make sure it's him - the fools went after every Tom Dick and Harry who had posted the DeCSS alg. on their sites - what's to stop them from trolling with "I've got 10,000 files on Aimster" with the followup "Did you listen to that mp3 I posted for you?" - admission of guilt...
You and I wouldn't be so stupid, but keep in mind that this is for AOL users...
I don't really see the problem here. It seems that everyone is crying about the fact that information that they offered VOLUNTARILY is availble to people other than those who they offered it too. Well, forgive me for saying so, but, how could you be so stupid?
If it is going to be a problem for you that someone has personal information about you, then don't give it to them. We don't need more regulations and laws that would be impossible to enforce anyway, we need to start using our own brains....
The post here about the person who wanted to buy a skirt, but wouldn't because of DoubleClick's partnership with the seller is a GREAT example of the power that consumers hold. If you're concerned about part of an agreement that you are going to enter into, either have the agreement modified, or don't sign. It's really that easy.
If you want to buy something from an on-line company, expect to have to adhear to their policies to do so. They make the rules, you don't have to follow them if you don't agree. Go somewhere else. The FREE MARKET really does work, contrary to the gov't's belief.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping my personal information private, but to do so, I actively practice discretion when I enter into agreements with entities that ask for personal information that I would prefer be kept private.
Slashdot Mirror
why ban either when the solution is clearly to develop a way to regulate world temperature - if we could get the climate down to absolute zero, all motion would stop and terrorists would be unable to act...
But now, the cry is to "protect the children" whenever something that even remotely related to kids comes up. Why the hell should anyone rely on the government to protect their children?
In a way, I really can't blame parents for trying to dish off the responsibility of raising their children to the government... They pay so much in taxes that there is little left for them to spend on raising a healthy family.
BUT, pushing the responsibility to the gov't is still a bad move... You can't legislate against stupidity - someone is always going to do something stupid - THEN they should have to pay the consequences - which may be just dealing with the result of whatever stupid act they committed...
Parents should be taking responsibility for raising their children - Find out what your kids are watching - find out what they're reading - parent in a way that inspires your child to trust you enough to want to confide in you... Punishing your children (the same way that the gov't punishes it's subjects) isn't going to teach them to be better people - Teach them to use their own minds and to make their own decisions.
A group of strict rules made up arbitrarily aren't going to help things. That's exactly what the gov't is attempting to do with their "protect the children" legislation...
Just vote Libertarian and end the madness...
Often times, as I'm sure readers of Slashdot know, it's the kids who are actually doing their school work and learning who are targeted. Why the hell are the kids that aren't interested in being there allowed to co-exist in the same environment as those who are?
One potential solution to consider is just to privatize schools as a whole. If parents have to pay for their children's education (what a wacky idea...) - perhaps they'll take a more proactive role in making sure their children are getting the most out of their education - and in turn that the parents themselves are getting the most out of their dollar.
A school that doesn't have to keep misbehaved kids as students (due to compulsory education laws) wouldn't think twice about expelling someone who was disrupting the education of the others. The parents wouldn't be willing to pay for an education that was continually interrupted by those who aren't interested in learning... And the parents of those who were misbehaved would have two choices - either straighten their kids out, or find someone to help them - a military school, perhaps?
I grew up in a town with a single private and a single public school. I had friends in both, and I must say that I really don't recall ever hearing about misbehaved kids in the private school. Coincidence? Maybe - I'd be interested in hearing from people who are the product of private schools who were bullied or who witnessed bullying...
Anyway - getting back to privatizing the American school system... This is may be an unrealistic goal to aim for, as this would mean that the politicians would no longer have control over what American children are being taught. They could potentially view this as a threat to their positions. As soon as the first generation of privately educated children mature to voting age... well you get the picture... It's hard to imagine a private school graduate who can't understand a simple butterfly ballot...
But - what do I know? After all, I graduated from a public school with a bunch of students who couldn't read, much less understand that competition in ANY industry (including education) would lead to a higher quality product overall...
-bs
And if you get in trouble for having those Limp Bizkit tunes in your public directory, well, that's your own problem too. You are allowing the general public to pirate copyrighted tunes off your hard drive -- no matter if your own MP3 copies are perfectly legal.
Could someone please explain to me why the hell it's illeagal to make something available to someone else? Isn't the crime in actually taking it?
If I were to leave the door to my house unlocked, and someone came in and recorded all of the videos in my VHS collection, and left without harming a single thing in my house, have I committed a crime? What if I told this person that the door would be unlocked? What if I gave the person a list of the movies in my collection and gave them a key to my house?
If that's not enough to make someone think twice about this file sharing thing, what about the case where I own or have developed or whatever, the technology to rip a couple of mp3's from my CD collection - all of which were obtained legally... Then, I send these mp3's to my best friend, who has also purchased the same CDs, but doesn't have a working CD drive in his machine (ok, this is highly unlikely, but still possible)... Was a crime committed?
As for the "monitoring software"...
If I were to post a sign on my door saying that it was unlocked and anyone who wanted to come in and copy my VHS collection should do so, I'd be a complete moron if I thought that there wouldn't be people there just to see what I had.
Personally, I really don't care if someone wants to monitor my downloads et.al.- anyone who wants to badly enough is going to get their way. Next time you're browsing in the local bookstore, are you going to be looking around frantically for someone watching to see what you're looking at?
Everyone seems to be overreacting to this "on-line privacy" thing - if you want privacy, you're going to have to work for it... Use a library computer, a co-worker's, your neighbor's - whatever. If you want privacy, the oness is on YOU and YOU ALONE. Don't start whining about how you're the powerless victim - TAKE YOUR BOX OFF THE WEB if you can't come up with a better way...
If you don't understand how to use PGP, stop whining about Carnivore, or whatever other "radical" privacy invasion tools the government is comming up with. The only way you're going to be able to keep your stuff private is if you do just as much work as the people interested in your private stuff.
Cordless phones allowed for the possibility of someone monitoring your phone conversations - now we've got 9 GHz phones - impossible to monitor? Probably not in the long run, but you'll just have to buy a better phone when it becomes possible...
Alternativly , you could just stop talking... Likewise, just stop using P2P systems if you're hung up on the fact that someone somewhere may be able to find out what you're essentially broadcasting to the entire f***ing planet...
-bs
If you could be so kind to name a single piece of legislation that solved the problems it was meant to address and didn't create others...
What's that? You can't?
Any time government has gotten involved with ANYTHING from pollution, currency, privacy, even the size of holes in Swiss cheese, no net good has resulted.
The government can't deliver our mail on time, can't educate our children, can't keep the roads in good condition (did you know the federal budget allocates enough money to federal highway upkeep each year to pay to pave a single lane of each Interstate in GOLD??) - why would anyone in their right mind trust them to "regulate" the internet, open source, et. al. ??
The only thing the politicians are good at is in being politicians - they don't have the experience or knowledge necessary to get involved with any aspect of the internet.
Christ, Al Gore thinks he invented it, the court system seems to think that file sharing "technologies" are going to put authors / artists out of business (why didn't the Xerox machine, VCR, tape deck, CDR, or even the pencil, for that matter, put these people out of business? They ADAPTED!) and Busch decided he's not going to even use e-mail because of an obvious violation of the fourth amendment...
Let's keep the government out of our lives and our paychecks (I for one am sick of having a portion of my paycheck allocated to fighting and supporting people on different sides of the same issue - it happens with tobacco, the EPA, the IRS etc.)
The D's and R's have simply been bickering over who gets to choose how your money is spent. Screw them both - vote Libertarian
Right, but make sure it's him - the fools went after every Tom Dick and Harry who had posted the DeCSS alg. on their sites - what's to stop them from trolling with "I've got 10,000 files on Aimster" with the followup "Did you listen to that mp3 I posted for you?" - admission of guilt...
You and I wouldn't be so stupid, but keep in mind that this is for AOL users...
-bs
If it is going to be a problem for you that someone has personal information about you, then don't give it to them. We don't need more regulations and laws that would be impossible to enforce anyway, we need to start using our own brains....
The post here about the person who wanted to buy a skirt, but wouldn't because of DoubleClick's partnership with the seller is a GREAT example of the power that consumers hold. If you're concerned about part of an agreement that you are going to enter into, either have the agreement modified, or don't sign. It's really that easy.
If you want to buy something from an on-line company, expect to have to adhear to their policies to do so. They make the rules, you don't have to follow them if you don't agree. Go somewhere else. The FREE MARKET really does work, contrary to the gov't's belief.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping my personal information private, but to do so, I actively practice discretion when I enter into agreements with entities that ask for personal information that I would prefer be kept private.
You always have the option to just say NO.
just my $.02
-rj