Re:Don't confuse the issues
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 1
Where did I say that peoples' medical files should be made public? I think that medical files are a GOOD thing.. they tend to prevent nasty incidents like allergic reactions to penicillin in the ER. I'm just wondering how you can claim that having a TV in your room as a kid will somehow cause you to have all these ailments later on.
Why shouldn't information like that be more confidential than media history, not less?
I don't follow your point here. If your medical records are more confidential than your "media record", with the current practice of explaining crimes by looking back to someone's psychological history, wouldn't it be commonplace to also look at someones' "media record"? this reeks of Big Brother.. employers can now see employees' medical data. If you claim that medical records should be more confidential than "media records," does that mean you feel that companies have a right to judge someone based on what TV they watched as a kid? Can a school put red flags in the files of kids who play violent video games and schedule them for more counseling?
TV is a part of our culture whether people like it or not.. to do business in this culture I think you have to know the culture. It's hard for me to picture a kid who grows up and gets a job in marketing or broadcasting who didn't watch some TV along the way.. now I'm not too fond of the marketing or broadcasting professions anyway so maybe that's a bad argument.
I think that shows from PBS such as Sesame Street, Barney, etc. can be educational. I don't know if you can trace someone's success in the job market back to their viewing choices as a kid but they do help children learn and I don't think this group should recommend that children not watch them. I watched Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers when I was a kid and although I always thought there was something a little wacky about Mr. Rogers, I do believe they helped me. I also read a lot, I'm not saying kids should just watch TV.. but with TV as much a part of our culture as it is, I don't think there's any grounds to remove TV from young peoples' lives. And the arguments that it has somehow contributed to this wave of violence we've seen are simply ludicrous.
Re:Don't confuse the issues
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 1
I had a TV in my room as a kid. Some things from my medical file:
I'm allergic to shellfish. I have asthma. I had my appendix taken out when I was 8. I had braces.
Please inform, exactly how were these things somehow caused by, or related to the TV in my room?
It is really shocking that a reputable organization could suggest that we keep records of our kids' exposure to media. Will this stuff be brought up in the same manner as a psychological history when someone does something horrible (i.e., it was revealed that one of the killers at Columbine was taking medication for depression)? Will we be saying about future incidents, "oh, I see why it happened, it says in his medical file that he watched Natural Born Killers and played Doom."
Then you raise your kids that way, and be happy with however they turn out. The nerve of you to inform all of us that if your kids aren't following easy steps 1 to 4 then you're doing something wrong. Who taught you this nonsense, Martha Stewart? Nothing is as easy as that, nothing is black and white like you make it out to be. It's funny you post this on slashdot when you seem to be against kids using any technology at all. Do you seriously think that kids (and you speak of people as old as 18 as kids) will be ready for tomorrow's job market if they NEVER use computers or watch TV? Face it, this is the new media and your post sounds like something from the 1800's!
Bottom line - it's not the theater's decision what our children see. It's the parents' decision. As Katz says, violent crime among young people has been dropping, not rising. Who decided that movies have anything to do with this? Why is it OK to see graphic violence on cable or the internet but teenagers can't see movies that are about people their age, such as American Pie?
Your point about mature children makes no sense - it's nobody's decision but the parents' whether a child is mature enough to see a movie with some sexual humor and a little nudity. Katz is definitely advocating responsible parenting - what he's NOT advocating is the hands-off parenting that's all too common, letting internet filtering software and MPAA ratings have the final say in what their children see.
Telnet is perfectly secure when there are all switches in between the user and the host - this is true in my case. I agree SSH is far more secure but sometimes it is not an option.
Well Debian and Red Hat come with a generic kernel built with the most common drivers, and many loadable modules. Many end users never need to mess with the kernel, unless a new release comes out with features they want.
Your system has probably been patched up to SP3 or 4, right? In that case, you too have messed with your kernel.
What do you mean, sysadmins are the only people who get to telnet to their own machines or run web servers? One big reason I have my linux box is that I can use it from a terminal or an alphastation somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Why shouldn't information like that be more confidential than media history, not less?
I don't follow your point here. If your medical records are more confidential than your "media record", with the current practice of explaining crimes by looking back to someone's psychological history, wouldn't it be commonplace to also look at someones' "media record"? this reeks of Big Brother.. employers can now see employees' medical data. If you claim that medical records should be more confidential than "media records," does that mean you feel that companies have a right to judge someone based on what TV they watched as a kid? Can a school put red flags in the files of kids who play violent video games and schedule them for more counseling?
TV is a part of our culture whether people like it or not.. to do business in this culture I think you have to know the culture. It's hard for me to picture a kid who grows up and gets a job in marketing or broadcasting who didn't watch some TV along the way.. now I'm not too fond of the marketing or broadcasting professions anyway so maybe that's a bad argument.
I think that shows from PBS such as Sesame Street, Barney, etc. can be educational. I don't know if you can trace someone's success in the job market back to their viewing choices as a kid but they do help children learn and I don't think this group should recommend that children not watch them. I watched Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers when I was a kid and although I always thought there was something a little wacky about Mr. Rogers, I do believe they helped me. I also read a lot, I'm not saying kids should just watch TV.. but with TV as much a part of our culture as it is, I don't think there's any grounds to remove TV from young peoples' lives. And the arguments that it has somehow contributed to this wave of violence we've seen are simply ludicrous.
I had a TV in my room as a kid. Some things from my medical file:
I'm allergic to shellfish.
I have asthma.
I had my appendix taken out when I was 8.
I had braces.
Please inform, exactly how were these things somehow caused by, or related to the TV in my room?
It is really shocking that a reputable organization could suggest that we keep records of our kids' exposure to media. Will this stuff be brought up in the same manner as a psychological history when someone does something horrible (i.e., it was revealed that one of the killers at Columbine was taking medication for depression)? Will we be saying about future incidents, "oh, I see why it happened, it says in his medical file that he watched Natural Born Killers and played Doom."
Then you raise your kids that way, and be happy with however they turn out. The nerve of you to inform all of us that if your kids aren't following easy steps 1 to 4 then you're doing something wrong. Who taught you this nonsense, Martha Stewart? Nothing is as easy as that, nothing is black and white like you make it out to be. It's funny you post this on slashdot when you seem to be against kids using any technology at all. Do you seriously think that kids (and you speak of people as old as 18 as kids) will be ready for tomorrow's job market if they NEVER use computers or watch TV? Face it, this is the new media and your post sounds like something from the 1800's!
Bottom line - it's not the theater's decision what our children see. It's the parents' decision. As Katz says, violent crime among young people has been dropping, not rising. Who decided that movies have anything to do with this? Why is it OK to see graphic violence on cable or the internet but teenagers can't see movies that are about people their age, such as American Pie?
Your point about mature children makes no sense - it's nobody's decision but the parents' whether a child is mature enough to see a movie with some sexual humor and a little nudity. Katz is definitely advocating responsible parenting - what he's NOT advocating is the hands-off parenting that's all too common, letting internet filtering software and MPAA ratings have the final say in what their children see.
Telnet is perfectly secure when there are all switches in between the user and the host - this is true in my case. I agree SSH is far more secure but sometimes it is not an option.
Well Debian and Red Hat come with a generic kernel built with the most common drivers, and many loadable modules. Many end users never need to mess with the kernel, unless a new release comes out with features they want.
Your system has probably been patched up to SP3 or 4, right? In that case, you too have messed with your kernel.
What do you mean, sysadmins are the only people who get to telnet to their own machines or run web servers? One big reason I have my linux box is that I can use it from a terminal or an alphastation somewhere.