Parent comment wins, shut down the thread. The question is would a reasonable person believe that he was facilitating a specific crime. If so, the culprit is guilty. This has always been the legal standard and software doesn't make it different. The burden is on the prosecution to show that a reasonable person would know. When judging the facts the key considerations are "reasonableness" and "specificity".
"Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious."
Um, no, that is the opposite of the truth. Government regulations are nearly always up-to-date and too lenient -- but if you look hard enough, you can find the one or two exceptions, such as Kindles on airplanes. You can weigh that one single instance against, say, the hundreds of thousands of building codes and food safety regulations.
That's not to say we shouldn't clean up those rare exceptions when we find them. We should, and we should with this one instance. But only a libertarian would be so daft as to ignore the vast overwhelming evidence presented by reality in order to hole up inside a small dark den of anarchistic ideology.
He's not wrong because he's an ass, he's wrong for the reason I pointed out. His being an ass is an extra characteristic. If I said he was wrong because he was an ass, that would be an ad hominem, but that's not what I did. If you are going to try to use pedantry, you need to learn the rules. Right now you're just a bad troll.
See what I did there? I called you a bad troll, which is a personal attack but it's not an ad hominem fallacy because I explained why you were wrong separate from the personal insult.
I think it would be quite appropriate for Microsoft to track down the people responsible for Windows, and force those people to apologize to the rest of us.
You equated "holding a tablet" with "ignoring kids". That is nonsense. Check yourself. You don't have to stake out a black/white position and defend it with bad reasoning. You can use subtle distinctions and complex thinking to come up with nuanced arguments.
If you are saying there are no good apps for some reason then you are apparently mistaken according to commenters who aren't ignorant of what is available.
Your kid is slow. When my son surfed out of my wife's vagina I handed the little guy a piece of chalk and he proved Fermat's Last Theorem. I scolded him and told him that was proven 17 years ago! Get working on P != NP, son!
Redundant is a tough mod because who reads every comment before posting? Still, it's a fair mod. He not only repeated exactly what those other posts said, but he also parroted the sanctimonious tone of the entire thread.
A child shouldn't be handling technology until about 3 years old, as many Slashdot stories have reported. It's also just common sense that so much stimulation so early on is bad for a developing brain.
Really? Are you saying that limiting the inputs to a plastic brain is a good way to improve its development? That's not my common sense. I was just having a conversation with my wife about music: I asked why do we play childish music for children instead of complex adult music? Their developing brains are surely more capable of processing it than our aged brains. Same for language: I would hardly talk less hoping my child would learn more language. So why would I expect that he would develop the ability to interact with a wide variety of tools, by limiting the kinds of tools I put into his hand?
I mean, what I'm saying is maybe that's true, but I don't think that's common sense.
My response here assumes your rhetorical equivalence between "handling technology" and "so much stimulation", since that is the leap you yourself made.
Yeah, I can. It would be something like this. Thanks for asking. Similarly, there are lots of apps appropriate for all ages of human, and even non-humans like cats and dogs. Imagine that!
Did you just get all high and mighty about distracting a kid with trifles for a couple minutes, and defend yourself by saying you lock your child away crying to itself, bored with nothing to do, somewhere out of earshot?
I'm a brand new father. Giving a bored child a toy to play with quietly while adults are doing something important seems quite reasonable to me. Am I way out of line here?
So you're saying a tablet is just as good as a rock, and a rock is perfectly fine? So you're saying there is no problem with the tablet? Also why do people keep jumping to "needs". Babies don't "need" wooden blocks, either.
You are reading too much into it. Electronics and the outdoors aren't mutually exclusive and they don't detract from one another. People can have both, children can have both. This question has nothing to do with giving up nature or spending all your time in front of computers. None of that was implied by the question.
Seriously. I think the Slashdot regulars really over-interpreted this question, don't you think? I think they read way too much into it. For instance, the GP jumped to "learning apps" and "language apps", but the question specifically asks about silly noises and sounds. The question has nothing to do with replacing outdoors and human interaction with cold machines and software. That's nonsense. Everyone keeps saying "you shouldn't put your kid in front of a TV and let them watch mindless crap every waking minute for their entire infancy". Yes, thank you Slashdot geniuses, you have really demonstrated your wisdom with a nugget like that. Way to think through the question all the way.
You fail because you unsuccessfully attempted to equate "any screen time" with "zone out in front of a screen". Sorry, those of us with the ability to reason saw thought your weak rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but then it wouldn't be "used in New York for gambling".
Parent comment wins, shut down the thread. The question is would a reasonable person believe that he was facilitating a specific crime. If so, the culprit is guilty. This has always been the legal standard and software doesn't make it different. The burden is on the prosecution to show that a reasonable person would know. When judging the facts the key considerations are "reasonableness" and "specificity".
"Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious."
Um, no, that is the opposite of the truth. Government regulations are nearly always up-to-date and too lenient -- but if you look hard enough, you can find the one or two exceptions, such as Kindles on airplanes. You can weigh that one single instance against, say, the hundreds of thousands of building codes and food safety regulations.
That's not to say we shouldn't clean up those rare exceptions when we find them. We should, and we should with this one instance. But only a libertarian would be so daft as to ignore the vast overwhelming evidence presented by reality in order to hole up inside a small dark den of anarchistic ideology.
Yes, absolutely they can do that (in the USA).
Great link, thanks.
Recently I also enjoyed a docu on Netflix about plane crashes. It was scary and fascinating.
Ryan Air would have assessed an extra-legroom fee to the people in the row that became the front row of seats.
Ryan Air would have charged the two-dollar bathroom fee to everyone who shit their pants.
Ryan Air would have charged a rebooking fee to anyone who missed their connection.
Ryan Air would ask everyone to kindly piss on the fire because there is no emergency crew on staff.
It depends on your standards of "proof". Good enough for a US court? Yes.
Backwards compatibility isn't one of my top 10,000 complaints about Windows, except insofar as it prevented Microsoft from fixing things.
He's not wrong because he's an ass, he's wrong for the reason I pointed out. His being an ass is an extra characteristic. If I said he was wrong because he was an ass, that would be an ad hominem, but that's not what I did. If you are going to try to use pedantry, you need to learn the rules. Right now you're just a bad troll.
See what I did there? I called you a bad troll, which is a personal attack but it's not an ad hominem fallacy because I explained why you were wrong separate from the personal insult.
I think it would be quite appropriate for Microsoft to track down the people responsible for Windows, and force those people to apologize to the rest of us.
There is no reason that developing language and motor skills is at odds with tablet apps. Think harder about that.
You equated "holding a tablet" with "ignoring kids". That is nonsense. Check yourself. You don't have to stake out a black/white position and defend it with bad reasoning. You can use subtle distinctions and complex thinking to come up with nuanced arguments.
If you are saying there are no good apps for some reason then you are apparently mistaken according to commenters who aren't ignorant of what is available.
Your kid is slow. When my son surfed out of my wife's vagina I handed the little guy a piece of chalk and he proved Fermat's Last Theorem. I scolded him and told him that was proven 17 years ago! Get working on P != NP, son!
GP was posted at 4:47 PM.
4:25 PM
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3339315&cid=42387833
4:27
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3339315&cid=42387851
Redundant is a tough mod because who reads every comment before posting? Still, it's a fair mod. He not only repeated exactly what those other posts said, but he also parroted the sanctimonious tone of the entire thread.
The question doesn't say anything about ignoring kids. That all came out of your imagination. Are you projecting? Tell me about your own childhood.
A child shouldn't be handling technology until about 3 years old, as many Slashdot stories have reported. It's also just common sense that so much stimulation so early on is bad for a developing brain.
Really? Are you saying that limiting the inputs to a plastic brain is a good way to improve its development? That's not my common sense. I was just having a conversation with my wife about music: I asked why do we play childish music for children instead of complex adult music? Their developing brains are surely more capable of processing it than our aged brains. Same for language: I would hardly talk less hoping my child would learn more language. So why would I expect that he would develop the ability to interact with a wide variety of tools, by limiting the kinds of tools I put into his hand?
I mean, what I'm saying is maybe that's true, but I don't think that's common sense.
My response here assumes your rhetorical equivalence between "handling technology" and "so much stimulation", since that is the leap you yourself made.
Yeah, I can. It would be something like this. Thanks for asking. Similarly, there are lots of apps appropriate for all ages of human, and even non-humans like cats and dogs. Imagine that!
Did you just get all high and mighty about distracting a kid with trifles for a couple minutes, and defend yourself by saying you lock your child away crying to itself, bored with nothing to do, somewhere out of earshot?
I'm a brand new father. Giving a bored child a toy to play with quietly while adults are doing something important seems quite reasonable to me. Am I way out of line here?
So you're saying a tablet is just as good as a rock, and a rock is perfectly fine? So you're saying there is no problem with the tablet? Also why do people keep jumping to "needs". Babies don't "need" wooden blocks, either.
You are reading too much into it. Electronics and the outdoors aren't mutually exclusive and they don't detract from one another. People can have both, children can have both. This question has nothing to do with giving up nature or spending all your time in front of computers. None of that was implied by the question.
vi and emacs are both for people stuck in the 1980s. By the early 1990s the good lord gave us BBEdit.
vi/emacs : BBEdit :: paper airplane : space shuttle
"as opposed to 2d pictures of 3d things"
How sad for your children, a childhood without picture books.
Your high horse, please step down from it.
Seriously. I think the Slashdot regulars really over-interpreted this question, don't you think? I think they read way too much into it. For instance, the GP jumped to "learning apps" and "language apps", but the question specifically asks about silly noises and sounds. The question has nothing to do with replacing outdoors and human interaction with cold machines and software. That's nonsense. Everyone keeps saying "you shouldn't put your kid in front of a TV and let them watch mindless crap every waking minute for their entire infancy". Yes, thank you Slashdot geniuses, you have really demonstrated your wisdom with a nugget like that. Way to think through the question all the way.
You fail because you unsuccessfully attempted to equate "any screen time" with "zone out in front of a screen". Sorry, those of us with the ability to reason saw thought your weak rhetoric.
Also note that the comment was from user "Computer_kid". Perhaps he's a self-hating nerd.