Perhaps normal, but paranoid. Those aren't even equivalent to accessing the internet, anyway.
So why do you fail as a parent when you lock the bad sites for your children?
Because there's no point to it. Unless you're one of the people who thinks that video games and porn turn children into rapists and murderers, what's the point? Education will go much further.
Locking it down also potentially takes away any educational purposes that it has. Instead of learning that such things exist, or being able to stumble upon things that they don't know, they're simply trapped in a bubble.
I didn't have a computer when I was a kid, unfortunately, but it's a very nice learning experience no matter your age.
I look at it the same way I look at real life.
Assuming that "real life" is that dangerous, the internet would be far less so since they're not even there.
I wouldn't let them walk the streets (even in my nice neighborhood) alone, why would I let them wander the internet alone?
I think a bit of paranoia plays into this. Most people aren't rapists, pedophiles, or murderers, and in fact, children did used to walk around alone. As long as they know how to properly cross the street and know the area, I don't see the problem.
Its just common sense.
Applying the label "common sense" to something doesn't make it common, obvious, or correct. What you believe is "common sense" may not be any of those things.
Little kids should be running around, playing with legos, learning how to socialize, etc.
Or perhaps that's just your opinion of what they should be doing. Each person has their own interests.
I'm yet to see a parenting skills that don't fail.
Really? I think the point is that the software gives you a false sense of security. Not to mention that it's rather pointless. I'd say education is a far better solution than treating the internet like a bogeyman.
As for me, I will lock my guns and other things they are not ready for
Guns are quite a bit different than the internet, and a kid is unlikely to harm themselves just by using the internet. Especially with actual guidance from their parent (as opposed to constantly watching them, or censorship).
To those who believe their 8 year olds can self regulate their internet usage...can your 8 year old regulate his XBox usage?
And speaking as someone with an almost irrational fear of everything for the sake of their children is better? But all of this is irrelevant, because whether or not you have children, your conclusions could be correct.
It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7.
Why? Not only will they likely discover it anyway, but it is highly unlikely they'll be hurt by it. In fact, I've seen no evidence to reach such a conclusion.
It is not unreasonable to want them to learn about sex and sexuality from a source that won't teach your daughters that slutty is what men like
You can guide them without censoring them. If your children are truly that foolish, of course. I know I, at least, was able to differentiate between fantasy and reality (or in this case, not take everything seen on television or in pornography at face value).
Checking out boobs in a Good Housekeeping bra add is a bit different than stumbling upon an Anal-Fisting web site when they were trying to search for something innocent.
I don't see the problem. Are they so weak that they'll be permanently scarred for life? I very highly doubt that. I think his advice that they should instead be guided is much better advice. Perhaps they won't grow up to be oversensitive and afraid, then.
Would you let a 7 or 8 year old talk to random people from around the world without supervision?
Why not? Unless you think most people are rapists or terrorists who will magically molest them over the internet, what is the problem? Just make sure they know what they're doing.
So you believe that you're superior to most of the people you've encountered.
In my opinion. There is no way I'll look highly upon people who seemingly cannot comprehend basic logic. The kind of people who are unaware of what an analogy is, who believe that many people believe something makes it true, or believe that if something is tradition, that means it's objectively okay.
I suppose you also believe that's an interesting insight to share.
How do you reconcile your low opinion of "chatting about pointless things" with your own actions, namely regularly commenting on/.?
By saying that even if it's pointless to comment on Slashdot, I want to do it. By saying that perhaps it's not pointless to me. It's subjective. Your response was highly predictable.
Being able to socialize, successfully, with people whose topics of discussion range outside of your immediate circle of interests --topics you seem to think of as pointless-- can lead to useful insights and relationships.
It hasn't, and I don't care. What it has made me believe, however, is that most of the people around me are imbeciles.
Actually, it's useless to me. If someone is offended by my demeanor, then perhaps they're simply oversensitive. If they're hiring me based on my hobbies (not chatting with others about pointless things in real life), then I suspect their priorities lie somewhere foolish.
Good thing I'm not around people who consider such a pointless thing "important," though.
It's a skill that is often lacking in CS students.
In neither of your examples is the actual speech made illegal. Only the consequences of it.
All speech has some degree of consequences. Using this logic, even China has absolute freedom of speech. After all, they only punish people for the consequences of their speech (whatever those consequences may be).
Of course, none of this matters because it's pretty clear that people are being punished for their speech. The actions of others are separate from their speech, and their speech is what they're being punished for (if they never said it, they wouldn't have been punished).
All while the more technical ones give the "casual ones" easy workarounds. But really, these people are at least proficient enough to use bittorrent, so I don't really see any such blocks preventing them from using a workaround.
Even then, all that would be needed to stop piracy is to make illegal distributing.torrent files containing copyrighted material.
You cannot stop copyright infringement with laws alone. In any case, this approach would probably involve the US proclaiming, once again, that it is the king of the world, as it seizes websites in completely different countries... Or the RIAA/MPAA could go the usual route and bribe every politician. Either way, corruption will be rampant.
"Pirating everything" just puts money in the pocket of ISPs
Even if you didn't download everything, chances are you'd still need an internet connection (or, at the very least, have one). So downloading everything probably won't put any more money in the pockets of ISPs than usual.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you so emotionally invested in it?
I wasn't aware that posting a few comments meant you're emotionally invested in it.
If you can't answer the original question, shouldn't you just move on?
No. He publicly posted the question, so I publicly answered in a way I saw fit.
It is normal to:
Perhaps normal, but paranoid. Those aren't even equivalent to accessing the internet, anyway.
So why do you fail as a parent when you lock the bad sites for your children?
Because there's no point to it. Unless you're one of the people who thinks that video games and porn turn children into rapists and murderers, what's the point? Education will go much further.
Locking it down also potentially takes away any educational purposes that it has. Instead of learning that such things exist, or being able to stumble upon things that they don't know, they're simply trapped in a bubble.
My kids don't have a computer.
I didn't have a computer when I was a kid, unfortunately, but it's a very nice learning experience no matter your age.
I look at it the same way I look at real life.
Assuming that "real life" is that dangerous, the internet would be far less so since they're not even there.
I wouldn't let them walk the streets (even in my nice neighborhood) alone, why would I let them wander the internet alone?
I think a bit of paranoia plays into this. Most people aren't rapists, pedophiles, or murderers, and in fact, children did used to walk around alone. As long as they know how to properly cross the street and know the area, I don't see the problem.
Its just common sense.
Applying the label "common sense" to something doesn't make it common, obvious, or correct. What you believe is "common sense" may not be any of those things.
Little kids should be running around, playing with legos, learning how to socialize, etc.
Or perhaps that's just your opinion of what they should be doing. Each person has their own interests.
I'm yet to see a parenting skills that don't fail.
Really? I think the point is that the software gives you a false sense of security. Not to mention that it's rather pointless. I'd say education is a far better solution than treating the internet like a bogeyman.
As for me, I will lock my guns and other things they are not ready for
Guns are quite a bit different than the internet, and a kid is unlikely to harm themselves just by using the internet. Especially with actual guidance from their parent (as opposed to constantly watching them, or censorship).
To those who believe their 8 year olds can self regulate their internet usage...can your 8 year old regulate his XBox usage?
What if they can? What if it's not necessary?
Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children.
Not all children are the same, anyway. What works for one may not work for another. You know, like with human beings...
Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children.
And speaking as someone with an almost irrational fear of everything for the sake of their children is better? But all of this is irrelevant, because whether or not you have children, your conclusions could be correct.
It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7.
Why? Not only will they likely discover it anyway, but it is highly unlikely they'll be hurt by it. In fact, I've seen no evidence to reach such a conclusion.
It is not unreasonable to want them to learn about sex and sexuality from a source that won't teach your daughters that slutty is what men like
You can guide them without censoring them. If your children are truly that foolish, of course. I know I, at least, was able to differentiate between fantasy and reality (or in this case, not take everything seen on television or in pornography at face value).
No technology shouldn't replace the job of a parent but the parent owns the equipment and I see nothing wrong with this.
Really? If I found out my parents were spying on my actions, my respect for them would dwindle to zero. Guidance, not spying.
Checking out boobs in a Good Housekeeping bra add is a bit different than stumbling upon an Anal-Fisting web site when they were trying to search for something innocent.
I don't see the problem. Are they so weak that they'll be permanently scarred for life? I very highly doubt that. I think his advice that they should instead be guided is much better advice. Perhaps they won't grow up to be oversensitive and afraid, then.
Would you let a 7 or 8 year old talk to random people from around the world without supervision?
Why not? Unless you think most people are rapists or terrorists who will magically molest them over the internet, what is the problem? Just make sure they know what they're doing.
So you believe that you're superior to most of the people you've encountered.
In my opinion. There is no way I'll look highly upon people who seemingly cannot comprehend basic logic. The kind of people who are unaware of what an analogy is, who believe that many people believe something makes it true, or believe that if something is tradition, that means it's objectively okay.
I suppose you also believe that's an interesting insight to share.
It's entertaining to me, at least.
You'd better do something! If they see that, they'll turn into evil rapists!
How do you reconcile your low opinion of "chatting about pointless things" with your own actions, namely regularly commenting on /.?
By saying that even if it's pointless to comment on Slashdot, I want to do it. By saying that perhaps it's not pointless to me. It's subjective. Your response was highly predictable.
Being able to socialize, successfully, with people whose topics of discussion range outside of your immediate circle of interests --topics you seem to think of as pointless-- can lead to useful insights and relationships.
It hasn't, and I don't care. What it has made me believe, however, is that most of the people around me are imbeciles.
"Please identify the first president of the United States: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison."
Rote memorization will show they care!
How would you know that it's useless to you?
Because it has been.
If you think that socializing = "chatting about pointless things"
That sounded like what you were suggesting.
At some point most people will need to work on teams -- that is, you need to be able to function with other people.
Oh, that? I don't believe there are many people who can't speak out of necessity.
Socializing is an important skill
Actually, it's useless to me. If someone is offended by my demeanor, then perhaps they're simply oversensitive. If they're hiring me based on my hobbies (not chatting with others about pointless things in real life), then I suspect their priorities lie somewhere foolish.
Good thing I'm not around people who consider such a pointless thing "important," though.
It's a skill that is often lacking in CS students.
They're doomed!
In neither of your examples is the actual speech made illegal. Only the consequences of it.
All speech has some degree of consequences. Using this logic, even China has absolute freedom of speech. After all, they only punish people for the consequences of their speech (whatever those consequences may be).
Of course, none of this matters because it's pretty clear that people are being punished for their speech. The actions of others are separate from their speech, and their speech is what they're being punished for (if they never said it, they wouldn't have been punished).
Just write a new game with new ideas!
Yeah! Instead of suing people who make clones of your old game, do something productive and make a new game.
How is that a crime?
Some people seem to think it's absolutely ridiculous.
Honestly, what is the proper change that should be made?
Shorten copyright.
There does not need to be more games
No games need to exist in the first place.
What you have here is a game that is so similar to Tetris that it is not innovative
Tetris in itself is not innovative. It's now an old game, and such decisions do nothing to further the alleged original intentions of copyright law.
I'm sure you've got good arguments for why not, you can give them to the lynch mob as they hang you from the nearest tree.
Yes, as usual, the main problem is the allegedly brainless majority, and not the actual policy.
All while the more technical ones give the "casual ones" easy workarounds. But really, these people are at least proficient enough to use bittorrent, so I don't really see any such blocks preventing them from using a workaround.
Even then, all that would be needed to stop piracy is to make illegal distributing .torrent files containing copyrighted material.
You cannot stop copyright infringement with laws alone. In any case, this approach would probably involve the US proclaiming, once again, that it is the king of the world, as it seizes websites in completely different countries... Or the RIAA/MPAA could go the usual route and bribe every politician. Either way, corruption will be rampant.
"Pirating everything" just puts money in the pocket of ISPs
Even if you didn't download everything, chances are you'd still need an internet connection (or, at the very least, have one). So downloading everything probably won't put any more money in the pockets of ISPs than usual.
Oh. Sometimes I have a hard time telling, because I have seen people use that point seriously before.