I'm sure that'd work about as well as prohibition did. No, actually, it would work even better! All the government needs is infinite money and resources and then they'd be able to enforce such policies!
I hope parents aren't forcing any of those things on their children. Furthermore, I know of no significant health reasons. All I've heard is that it slightly decreases the chances that they'll get certain infections or catch certain diseases, but with proper hygiene, some of the risks of these things happening can almost be eliminated anyway.
I'm not seeing any benefits I'd consider significant. Slightly lower risks of catching some diseases and infections, but to me, that's not enough of a reason to permanently alter someone's body.
As I predicted, the old pass the buck to the parents nonsense. Yes, it is that hard. Technically, logistically, and time wise.
Oh, no! Some children might see some pornography! It's the end of the world! For the children, we must...
Honestly, it's really your problem, and I don't really care how difficult it is for you or others to stop children from viewing porn. I don't even care if they do see porn.
Bringing them down would be nice, but it just ain't worth the risk and price.
I'm sure it'll happen eventually, anyway. Copyright is almost impossible to enforce at this point, and if they try to create draconian laws, all they'll do is anger innocent people and turn them against them (though, since the average person usually only cares about him/herself, that would be when something directly affects them).
It doesn't surprise me at all that people support laws I believe are unjust because those laws benefit them. If we had a certain group of people in society who, by law, could walk in anyone's house and steal a certain percentage of his/her belongings, a number of people in that group might support such a thing simply because it benefits them.
Dump a toddler alone on a deserted island with all the books in the world and you're not going to find a college graduate there when you pop in to check 25 years later.
Well, if you were talking about children that young, then I would agree with you.
All the hacktivism in the world won't change that.
And all the whining from the industry in the world won't make copyright enforceable. It's almost as if... they need to find a different business model, and as if... they're the ones responsible for doing so, just like any other business would be.
The six strikes system hasn't been in effect long enough to see if the *AAs will still continue to sue the pants off of people and use any data obtained from the six strikes system against the accused.
Why wouldn't they? Given the fact that these companies have no compunctions about ruining people's lives because they violated someone's copyright, I find no reason to assume that they won't use the data against people. I mean, really, what have these companies done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Either home school them, or encourage them to learn outside of school.
Some states are extremely hostile towards homeschooling, and for kids who aren't home schooled, many probably won't want to learn after school after doing 7-8 hours of boring, useless work.
A remarkable number of them can't name a single city outside of the United States/Mexico.
I don't think rote learning is what should be tested for, but true understanding. Much of this knowledge simply isn't that important and will be forgotten over time anyway.
I know that at least they could put up with a hierarchical institutional environment for 4 years
Most people aren't paid to go to college, and the work that is done in college typically isn't anything like work done in the real-world. It doesn't tell you much, in my opinion. Some people just don't think formal schooling can give them a better education than some alternatives.
and were able to do sufficient amount of learning to make academic progress.
I'm not sure how you would know that.
but that technology can't replace a good teacher.
Depends on the student, and it depends on what qualifies as a "good teacher" to the student. Not everyone learns in the same ways, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution, "good teachers" included.
What about all the rote memorization? What about the fact that there are so many poorly designed tests (poorly designed because they don't test for true understanding of the material) that students have to take that teachers practically have to teach to the test or else they'll lose funding? Well, that does kind of go with some of the things you said, I suppose.
but we will only get so far without a teacher to teach us.
Depending on how motivated you are, you can usually get quite far without a teacher to teach you. See: self-education. Well, unless you considered books and other educational resources to be teachers...
How about... the people responsible for the bombing? Have you ever considered that not everyone believes that safety is more important than privacy and freedom in a majority of cases?
Tell me, how's it feel thinking in the extremes 24/7?
How would I know? I don't believe anything I've said thus far is extreme; rather, I believe it all to be obvious. Humans are not perfect beings, and that includes the people we choose to govern us. I do not believe it is unreasonable to suggest that we should not give the government unchecked powers given history's long line of abusive, corrupt governments.
Slashdot Mirror
Banning ads for sex tourism should be a no-brainier I would hope.
Supporting censorship isn't a no-brainer to me at all.
I'm sure that'd work about as well as prohibition did. No, actually, it would work even better! All the government needs is infinite money and resources and then they'd be able to enforce such policies!
I hope parents aren't forcing any of those things on their children. Furthermore, I know of no significant health reasons. All I've heard is that it slightly decreases the chances that they'll get certain infections or catch certain diseases, but with proper hygiene, some of the risks of these things happening can almost be eliminated anyway.
I'm not seeing any benefits I'd consider significant. Slightly lower risks of catching some diseases and infections, but to me, that's not enough of a reason to permanently alter someone's body.
As I predicted, the old pass the buck to the parents nonsense. Yes, it is that hard. Technically, logistically, and time wise.
Oh, no! Some children might see some pornography! It's the end of the world! For the children, we must...
Honestly, it's really your problem, and I don't really care how difficult it is for you or others to stop children from viewing porn. I don't even care if they do see porn.
Most people accept that children should't see pornography.
Most people seem to be idiots. What's your point?
And thinking censorship is never justified is just as bad an answer as the rest.
I disagree entirely.
Yes, blame the pirates. The people who actually implemented the DRM had nothing to do with it! It's true! Really!
Creating a simple DRM system that ensures that 95% will buy the game and will not be impeding is fine.
I don't think so.
Maybe violating people's rights isn't such a bad thing after all...
We have no problems with helicopter surveillance
I have a problem with both, but helicopters are more expensive and it would be far more difficult to monitor large numbers of people with them.
Actually, they probably just shouldn't have this alert system in the first place.
Now if only they could do something similar with something more serious (such as the TSA). The way they handled the TSA petition was simply comical.
Bringing them down would be nice, but it just ain't worth the risk and price.
I'm sure it'll happen eventually, anyway. Copyright is almost impossible to enforce at this point, and if they try to create draconian laws, all they'll do is anger innocent people and turn them against them (though, since the average person usually only cares about him/herself, that would be when something directly affects them).
It doesn't surprise me at all that people support laws I believe are unjust because those laws benefit them. If we had a certain group of people in society who, by law, could walk in anyone's house and steal a certain percentage of his/her belongings, a number of people in that group might support such a thing simply because it benefits them.
Dump a toddler alone on a deserted island with all the books in the world and you're not going to find a college graduate there when you pop in to check 25 years later.
Well, if you were talking about children that young, then I would agree with you.
All the hacktivism in the world won't change that.
And all the whining from the industry in the world won't make copyright enforceable. It's almost as if... they need to find a different business model, and as if... they're the ones responsible for doing so, just like any other business would be.
The six strikes system hasn't been in effect long enough to see if the *AAs will still continue to sue the pants off of people and use any data obtained from the six strikes system against the accused.
Why wouldn't they? Given the fact that these companies have no compunctions about ruining people's lives because they violated someone's copyright, I find no reason to assume that they won't use the data against people. I mean, really, what have these companies done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Either home school them, or encourage them to learn outside of school.
Some states are extremely hostile towards homeschooling, and for kids who aren't home schooled, many probably won't want to learn after school after doing 7-8 hours of boring, useless work.
A remarkable number of them can't name a single city outside of the United States/Mexico.
I don't think rote learning is what should be tested for, but true understanding. Much of this knowledge simply isn't that important and will be forgotten over time anyway.
I know that at least they could put up with a hierarchical institutional environment for 4 years
Most people aren't paid to go to college, and the work that is done in college typically isn't anything like work done in the real-world. It doesn't tell you much, in my opinion. Some people just don't think formal schooling can give them a better education than some alternatives.
and were able to do sufficient amount of learning to make academic progress.
I'm not sure how you would know that.
but that technology can't replace a good teacher.
Depends on the student, and it depends on what qualifies as a "good teacher" to the student. Not everyone learns in the same ways, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution, "good teachers" included.
What about all the rote memorization? What about the fact that there are so many poorly designed tests (poorly designed because they don't test for true understanding of the material) that students have to take that teachers practically have to teach to the test or else they'll lose funding? Well, that does kind of go with some of the things you said, I suppose.
but we will only get so far without a teacher to teach us.
Depending on how motivated you are, you can usually get quite far without a teacher to teach you. See: self-education. Well, unless you considered books and other educational resources to be teachers...
You should always take threats seriously even if you think it is 99% certain that it is a hoax.
No, no. I'd rather not constantly tremble in fear of the unlikely. This is exactly the kind of mindset the TSA preys on.
How about... the people responsible for the bombing? Have you ever considered that not everyone believes that safety is more important than privacy and freedom in a majority of cases?
Tell me, how's it feel thinking in the extremes 24/7?
How would I know? I don't believe anything I've said thus far is extreme; rather, I believe it all to be obvious. Humans are not perfect beings, and that includes the people we choose to govern us. I do not believe it is unreasonable to suggest that we should not give the government unchecked powers given history's long line of abusive, corrupt governments.