If you look at it as psyops I'd agree, but I think Ronny actually believed in the feasibility of his Star Wars vision and and subsequently an inordinate amount of money was sunk into the military-industrial sector - with ultimately zero return in terms of useful products.
Some posters already pointed out that the quote attributed to Newton is really something Laplace would have said, but it hasn't been pointed out that there is actually an established term for this line of thinking. It is called the Laplace demon.
I transferred within the same company so this wasn't an issue for me.
Generally I understand that Canada wants to ensure that people who get here make good money. After all this is supposed to be a net benefit for the country.
And so far the formula seems to work. In this pocket of the GTA (York region) recent immigrants make on average more money then the established Canadians.
I worked in Germany, the US and now Canada. Had a green card for the US due to my American wife, but decided that Canada would be a good place to sit out the Great Recession. I wouldn't be here if this country didn't have fairly transparent immigration rules that allow for certainty that you and your familly will get permanent residence status.
Payed of handsomely for Canada. After all I pay a heck of a lot of taxes - not considerably much worse than what I had to pay in the US though and my salary increased by a good margin when I made the move.
So in your words there is always only one kind of "learning" although the "cognitive" processes underlying this learning may vary.
But apparently in your world there is really no need for science to take a closer look at what these difference are, as you happily move the goal posts even further and put away with the concept of childhood altogether.
When you argue that "child" is a subjective term then of course there can be no science associated with it. Child psychology, developmental neurology all pseudo-sciences if we go by your rhetoric.
And let me clue you in on the meaning of the term "may" when used by scientists. Science when based on statistical inference always has uncertainty associated with it. To give you another example: The world may be much warmer 50 years from now if we don't get CO2 emissions under control.
Yep, you are using the very same rhetorical techniques as global warming deniers. You should maybe think of changing your career path. Skillful science denialism can pay well if you find the right "thinktank".
There is no punishment to keep them away from disturbing material. This is simply about blunting the edges. Just like you don't give a sharp adult pair of scissors to a child but rather a more blunt kid version.
Everybody here jumps to the conclusion that this is about absolute shielding of the children, but of course this is impossible. It is just about slightly delaying the inevitable while at the same time given more time to parents to prepare them for the nasty realities that life will throw at them.
The black and white rigidity on display here is stupefying.
(1) That exposure to violence in media has no influence on a developing mind. (2) That there is only one kind of learning without a difference between adult and child learning.
The last links were about your point (2). Geez - shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
My point specifically was about creating a save zone for the off-spring which is quite common accross all mammals and is often also directed against male sexual aggression.
To the extend that it is established that human children can suffer from depictions of violence this is an extension of this principle.
And yes, the detrimental impact on children by violence depicted in visual media is well established as illustrated by the various references that I already included in the other comment:
BTW I am not concerned about simple nudity or a normal sex act, it is very specifically the mixture of aggression and sex that is most concerning. That is why I repeatedly cited "Fisting" and "Ball Torture".
Your comment has certainly ruined my day and is very depressing. I originally chalked this nonsense up to teenage immaturity. If you are in fact a parent and yet so proudly display your ignorance on this topic, then this is disturbing on many levels.
And yes, you are also entirely wrong about learning. You are essentially negating decades of neurological, psychological, AI and educational research. The key here is how category learning works and the path towards more abstract thought processes.
Don't think though that any of this will penetrate you pre-conceived notion.
So you want to pretend that there are not very clear and widely accepted standards available for what constitutes gratuitous violence and pornography?
Guess what, there is this industry called movie business and TV.
I no they are old media and that's why you may never have heard of them. They had the same kind of issues and came up with standards long time ago. Amazing isn't it?
Obviously that'll only affect Wiki articles with gratuitous images and/or multimedia content. In which case that'll be exactly the way it should be used.
Actually consider graphic depiction of the crucifixion as the equivalent of torture porn. Don't see any reason to expose my kids to that level of stupid yet either.
Judging from the ignorance on display of some of these posters, makes me wonder if some of them are still teenagers and fear for their wikipedia porn backdoor.
Yes, I want to censor what my kids get to see until they reached a certain age and maturity. There I said it.
You know what else I force them to do?
To eat healthy and regularly, to properly wipe their buts, to flush the toilet when they're done, to brush and floss their teeth (that was a real challenge) and to go to bed early, so they get a good night sleep, especially when school's on. Oh, and did I mention homework?
This only concerns images and video material. It is easy to stop reading a violent depiction. This is the first self-protection any reader will fairly easily acquire.
The basic principle that parents or parental communities create safe zones in which their off-spring can play and learn is something you can observe in nature, outside the human realm, as well. It really is a very basic principle.
Also, the fact that you think the kind of learning that adults experience is comparable in scope to the formative processes that a child's mind undergoes is, to be frank, stunningly ignorant.
I use the OpenDNS filter on the computers that my kids can access.
I don't believe in locking our computers up, but I also don't believe in sitting next to my kids for the entirety when they play games, draw or watch cartoons on the computer. Although, for the most part, I am in the same room when they are online.
I also installed the etoys programming environment for my seven year old and he gets quite a bit of mileage out of it. I contemplated to just have the computer be offline to force him to use the locally installed software, but I think that is too restrictive.
And no, I am not the kind of parent who hovers over his kids in any other public space as well. We have a park in front of the house and all the neighborhood's kids go and play out there. I can hear and see them from the front door but I don't feel that at this age I need to have them under parental surveillance 24/7 when they're out in the park.
What you suggest as a solution essentially means to not grant them any independence at all - neither online nor offline.
Judging what is child unsuitable content is not rocket science and it can be easily crowd sourced. Advocating that every parent is supposed to do it on their own is brain-dead.
Children's minds have to develop. Nobody is born with any categorical knowledge. For instance a child even has to learn what gender is. Try to explain sex to a child who's still not quite clear on this.
A seven year old already acquired a good bit of knowledge about the world but not at all the robust coping mechanisms of an adult.
If he came across disturbing images while I am sitting next to him I could intervene and put things into context, but I cannot at this age have him surf the web interdependently without filter.
Again, if you think this is over-protection I can only hope you are not the caregiver for young children.
Children need a protective space to grow up. You increase the boundaries of that space in accordance with how their abilities and judgment mature.
You clearly don't seem to grasp this very basic concept of parenting.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at it as psyops I'd agree, but I think Ronny actually believed in the feasibility of his Star Wars vision and and subsequently an inordinate amount of money was sunk into the military-industrial sector - with ultimately zero return in terms of useful products.
Your are seriously telling us that Ronny *Star Wars* Reagan was asking for prompt results from military researchers?
Some posters already pointed out that the quote attributed to Newton is really something Laplace would have said, but it hasn't been pointed out that there is actually an established term for this line of thinking. It is called the Laplace demon.
I transferred within the same company so this wasn't an issue for me.
Generally I understand that Canada wants to ensure that people who get here make good money. After all this is supposed to be a net benefit for the country.
And so far the formula seems to work. In this pocket of the GTA (York region) recent immigrants make on average more money then the established Canadians.
I worked in Germany, the US and now Canada. Had a green card for the US due to my American wife, but decided that Canada would be a good place to sit out the Great Recession. I wouldn't be here if this country didn't have fairly transparent immigration rules that allow for certainty that you and your familly will get permanent residence status.
Payed of handsomely for Canada. After all I pay a heck of a lot of taxes - not considerably much worse than what I had to pay in the US though and my salary increased by a good margin when I made the move.
Yep, as I said a great career world in lobbying is open to you (if you're not already in that line of business).
You can always demean and denigrate science that is based on statistics and muddy the water when the science is expressed in simple language.
Really not interested in wasting any more time on this pointless debate of empty rhetoric.
Have a nice day.
This is sophistry of the highest order.
So in your words there is always only one kind of "learning" although the "cognitive" processes underlying this learning may vary.
But apparently in your world there is really no need for science to take a closer look at what these difference are, as you happily move the goal posts even further and put away with the concept of childhood altogether.
When you argue that "child" is a subjective term then of course there can be no science associated with it. Child psychology, developmental neurology all pseudo-sciences if we go by your rhetoric.
And let me clue you in on the meaning of the term "may" when used by scientists. Science when based on statistical inference always has uncertainty associated with it. To give you another example: The world may be much warmer 50 years from now if we don't get CO2 emissions under control.
Yep, you are using the very same rhetorical techniques as global warming deniers. You should maybe think of changing your career path. Skillful science denialism can pay well if you find the right "thinktank".
There is no punishment to keep them away from disturbing material. This is simply about blunting the edges. Just like you don't give a sharp adult pair of scissors to a child but rather a more blunt kid version.
Everybody here jumps to the conclusion that this is about absolute shielding of the children, but of course this is impossible. It is just about slightly delaying the inevitable while at the same time given more time to parents to prepare them for the nasty realities that life will throw at them.
The black and white rigidity on display here is stupefying.
You'd do much better to try to prepare them for the horrors of the world than to try to shield them from it.
I actually agree. But this doesn't mean that they should accidentally come across these horrors while surfing the web.
To the extend that I want to grant them some autonomy on the computer, filters are a useful tool and I am currently using the OpenDNS one.
Yes, parents get to see and do what children are not allowed to.
The horror. What is the world coming to!
You understand that the suggestion was that the filter was by default off, and you would have to opt in for it to come into effect?
And you still haven't answered the question of just who is going to shift through the archive
It's a wiki.
Everybody should be able to set the flag. Would be happy to help with this if such a flag existed.
As there is a demand for this I am quite certain a 3rd party solution will eventually be provided. It will just be outside the control of Wikipedia.
You make two innate points:
(1) That exposure to violence in media has no influence on a developing mind.
(2) That there is only one kind of learning without a difference between adult and child learning.
The last links were about your point (2). Geez - shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
My point specifically was about creating a save zone for the off-spring which is quite common accross all mammals and is often also directed against male sexual aggression.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/functional-aspects-of-maternal-aggression-in-mammals/
To the extend that it is established that human children can suffer from depictions of violence this is an extension of this principle.
And yes, the detrimental impact on children by violence depicted in visual media is well established as illustrated by the various references that I already included in the other comment:
http://www.apa.org/research/action/protect.aspx
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/03/media-violence.aspx
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00246.x/abstract
http://mediasmarts.ca/backgrounder/kids-net-seven-and-eight-year-olds
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/pr040527.cfm
Oh my! You are a father?
And you don't even bother with a quick search to double check if maybe your initial statements might be false.
Two minutes of web search:
http://www.apa.org/research/action/protect.aspx
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/03/media-violence.aspx
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00246.x/abstract
http://mediasmarts.ca/backgrounder/kids-net-seven-and-eight-year-olds
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/pr040527.cfm
BTW I am not concerned about simple nudity or a normal sex act, it is very specifically the mixture of aggression and sex that is most concerning. That is why I repeatedly cited "Fisting" and "Ball Torture".
Your comment has certainly ruined my day and is very depressing. I originally chalked this nonsense up to teenage immaturity. If you are in fact a parent and yet so proudly display your ignorance on this topic, then this is disturbing on many levels.
And yes, you are also entirely wrong about learning. You are essentially negating decades of neurological, psychological, AI and educational research. The key here is how category learning works and the path towards more abstract thought processes.
Don't think though that any of this will penetrate you pre-conceived notion.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403200097.html
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1641285
http://web.cs.dal.ca/~sraza/papers/Malay_journal.pdf
So you want to pretend that there are not very clear and widely accepted standards available for what constitutes gratuitous violence and pornography?
Guess what, there is this industry called movie business and TV.
I no they are old media and that's why you may never have heard of them. They had the same kind of issues and came up with standards long time ago. Amazing isn't it?
Obviously that'll only affect Wiki articles with gratuitous images and/or multimedia content. In which case that'll be exactly the way it should be used.
No and no.
Actually consider graphic depiction of the crucifixion as the equivalent of torture porn. Don't see any reason to expose my kids to that level of stupid yet either.
Indeed.
Judging from the ignorance on display of some of these posters, makes me wonder if some of them are still teenagers and fear for their wikipedia porn backdoor.
Yes, I want to censor what my kids get to see until they reached a certain age and maturity. There I said it.
You know what else I force them to do?
To eat healthy and regularly, to properly wipe their buts, to flush the toilet when they're done, to brush and floss their teeth (that was a real challenge) and to go to bed early, so they get a good night sleep, especially when school's on. Oh, and did I mention homework?
It's practically a complete regime of tyranny.
This only concerns images and video material. It is easy to stop reading a violent depiction. This is the first self-protection any reader will fairly easily acquire.
Not so easy to unsee an image.
The basic principle that parents or parental communities create safe zones in which their off-spring can play and learn is something you can observe in nature, outside the human realm, as well. It really is a very basic principle.
Also, the fact that you think the kind of learning that adults experience is comparable in scope to the formative processes that a child's mind undergoes is, to be frank, stunningly ignorant.
I use the OpenDNS filter on the computers that my kids can access.
I don't believe in locking our computers up, but I also don't believe in sitting next to my kids for the entirety when they play games, draw or watch cartoons on the computer. Although, for the most part, I am in the same room when they are online.
I also installed the etoys programming environment for my seven year old and he gets quite a bit of mileage out of it. I contemplated to just have the computer be offline to force him to use the locally installed software, but I think that is too restrictive.
And no, I am not the kind of parent who hovers over his kids in any other public space as well. We have a park in front of the house and all the neighborhood's kids go and play out there. I can hear and see them from the front door but I don't feel that at this age I need to have them under parental surveillance 24/7 when they're out in the park.
What you suggest as a solution essentially means to not grant them any independence at all - neither online nor offline.
Judging what is child unsuitable content is not rocket science and it can be easily crowd sourced. Advocating that every parent is supposed to do it on their own is brain-dead.
Children's minds have to develop. Nobody is born with any categorical knowledge. For instance a child even has to learn what gender is. Try to explain sex to a child who's still not quite clear on this.
A seven year old already acquired a good bit of knowledge about the world but not at all the robust coping mechanisms of an adult.
If he came across disturbing images while I am sitting next to him I could intervene and put things into context, but I cannot at this age have him surf the web interdependently without filter.
Again, if you think this is over-protection I can only hope you are not the caregiver for young children.
Children need a protective space to grow up. You increase the boundaries of that space in accordance with how their abilities and judgment mature.
You clearly don't seem to grasp this very basic concept of parenting.