your post is kind of nonsensical. really, you should be fine just as long as you keep them at this camp all year long, the camp doesn't have an internet connection, the camp doesn't have an age limit on attendees, your child never grows up and moves out, and the other children at the camp are never exposed to porn and tell your child about it.
really though, you're not doing your kid(s) any favors by not talking about sex or letting them online. they can get pregnant (impregnate others) whether or not you talk to them about sex, and they can still contract STDs that can rob you of any hope of grandchildren.
you know, you really aren't too open minded. opened mindedness goes both ways and you aren't even trying to see the other person's point, and it really shows.
you cannot get away from nudity == sex == pornography.
i would dispute all of those equalities.
first, nudity is totally natural. no one should be made to feel ashamed of their bodies.
second, sex is something that people are not born able to do. have you not noticed the physiological phenomena of adolescence and puberty? children begin to sexually mature and begin to have sexual feelings between the ages of 11-13ish. has this been totally lost on this discussion. sex can be a wonderful thing, but is tough to explain to an 11 year old, because they might not have those urges yet... and even if they do, might be have the requisite rough time coming to terms with them.
third, porn is distasteful to a lot of intelligent adults. it objectifies women and men and rarely reflects on the emotional side of sex, it never deals with PREGNANCY, nor people contracting STDs. porn offers a very different view of sex than reality, and many parents think that it's wise to not freely let their kids view porn (even knowing that they'll probably see it anyway).
this guy says that he felt that he was starting to objectify women from looking at porn to frequently, so he prevented himself from viewing it. are you saying that this is just an empty gesture because we live in a slightly farenheit451ish society?
at least he recognized his problem and made an effort, which speaks to his credit, and the credit or his upbringing. even if it was futile.
face facts - putting down people like that may point to your own personal shortcomings, and to the shortcoming of your parents and the job that they did raising you. you're throwing spears in a grass hut.
i occasionally view porn. i also went to a top-tier school. and i was an eagle scout... blah, blah, blah.
she's 11.
there's a philosophical 'paradox' involving imprecise definitions and induction... it's the 'heap problem.' in a nutshell, you have a few scattered pieces of corn on the ground. that's obviously not a heap. you also know that adding one more piece of corn won't make a difference in the 'heapness' of a pile of corn. so you add one more piece of corn, and it's not a heap. lather, rinse, repeat infinitely - and there's the 'paradox'.
(i don't want people missing the point and discussing possible solutions to this)
my point is that at some point, a kid is too young to look at porn. if a 5 year old looking at porn doesn't disturb you... then i'd wonder a little.
so when does someone cease to be too young? i'd definitely say that it depends on the person in question, but that it would be older than 11 and younger than 17.
maybe the kid will find some other way of accessing it (buying playboys at flea markets when you're 13-14 is a thrill, i assure you). but i think the parent has the responsibility of trying to prevent their kids from seeing porn until they've reached a point where they're mature enough.
you don't let young kids play with gun unsupervised, and you don't let them play with bleach and ammonia... so don't think that this is a black or white censorship issue. there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. and the freedom of where to draw that line should belong to the parents.
PS. 3 things:
the masses aren't uneducated, they are stupid.
you miss the point of 'things js mill never had to worry about'... the point as i understand it is this: if jsm had to worry about kids looking at triple-penetrations or getting abducted by 45 year old perverts they met in chat rooms, he might have rethought the whole tyranny of the masses stuff. just like the founding fathers may or may not have been more careful with the wording of the 2nd amendment if they had foreseen AK47s and teflon coated bullets...
don't brag about reaching the karma cap. you can do that by just post nonsense very frequently. just don't brag about karma, period.
i just wasted all that time under the misunderstanding that you were replying to the original story... my bad... i will try to read more carefullly.
that being said, that tool sounds not too different from sending traffic through a proxy and logging there... which really doesn't bother me as much as it does you.
again, remember that there are some pretty f*cked up people out there. just like anywhere else. and you should tell your kids not to take candy from strangers on- or offline.
this parent has a legitimate concern. and while your point has some validity, you are grossly simplifying a complex situation.
first of all: there are parents out there that are domineering and controlling, and sometimes their kids suffer for it - but sometimes they turn out just fine, too. just as often as i've seen less than stellar parenting result in 'angry and rebellious' people, i've seen it result in wonderful and decent people who have no trouble dealing with life or society. that broad generalization is flat out wrong, and i'm sure you realize that.
back to the point, the person submitting this story is trying to figure out how to give his step-daughter as much freedom online as possible. you, as a (presumably) mature person, would almostly certainly be able to realize not to give an anonymous chatter your address and full name. or not to give out credit card numbers to dubious sites. or not to go to goat.se.cx... however, a kid might not be aware of the dangers in this behaviour. and it's not just a learning experience... chatting with a stranger has gotten more than a couple of people killed or kidnapped. i seem to think that either of those scenarios could be much more detrimental to the normal development and socialization of a child than a domineering parent...
this guy is trying to moniter his step daughters activity, and try to prevent her from seeing things she might not really be ready to see. he's not tying her up in the basement or keeping her under lock and key. contemplating filtering software or monitering someone's traffic is hardly "seeking complete control of another humam being." really, underparenting can be just as bad as overparenting....
save your righteous indignation for M$ attacks on open source or Rambus patent stories.
say what you want, but you didn't mention RC cola, J&M insurance co., smutty nose beer, or asic sneakers... the advertisers seek brand recognition, and you've illustrated how well they've achieved their goals...
would it help if they selectively picked and chose only fuzzy happy cases??
guess what! that nativity scene was unconstitutional (build it off public property, then), and the nazis and kkk have a right to march where ever the hell they want (if they have a permit, which under constitutional protection they have a right to obtain...)
just because these cases leave a bitter tast in you mouth doesn't mean the ACLU is wrong. they have always worked on the principle that no one is going to pass a law saying "section 1a. everyone hereby loses their right to free speech" - free speech is eroded gradually. all cases that abridge freedom of expression are going to be targeted with equal energy.
i would actually think that this would be comforting, that they aren't subjective about what cases they take on...
that being said, not all people believe in free speech. those who don't probably shouldn't join...
"...Sexually explicit performance" means a motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or other presentation that, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual excitement, erotic fondling, sexual intercourse, or sadomasochistic abuse. Sexually explicit performance includes, but is not limited to, any performance described in this subdivision..."
i believe the term is 'overly broad'. laws that limit free speech exist, but must meet extremely stringent requirements.
also, the law doesn't apply only to "obscene" material, but in fact extends to it. the law also covers "sexually explicit material".
in their defense, this law is meant to apply only to brick&mortar and online porn retailers... but good intent doesn't count for much. they still have to be very careful with the wording of the law...
The ACLU is an advocate/lobbying group for the for the First Amendment.
Examine the degree to which the ACLU is "psychotic" and how they pursue there goals "to the point of stupidity", and then compare your finding with the tobacco lobby, the gun lobby, the energy lobby, etc... - you will find the ACLU is very typical in there zeal. how they are very atypical is in their ideals.
everyone who supports the ACLU eventually wonders if they take their cause too far... however, it hard to underestimate the extent to which they have preserved our (fragile) freedoms. rousseau (i think) said something to the extend that in a free society, we are only as free as the most oppressed among us...
remember that the ACLU is a product of the tireless efforts by politicians and special interest (read: religious right's) groups to take away the freedoms we're guaranteed in the constitution's bill of rights. and while the ACLU is liberal, supporting the first amendment should have nothing but bipartisan support - free speech seems to be an even greater concern to most conservatives (i am chagrined to say.. as a 'flaming liberal' myself).
if you in fact did this, and were not fired (whether or not your super was violating company policy), you were lucky.
fine, it was ballsy. fine, your boss was in the wrong. doesn't change the fact that if your boss had the desire to fire you, you would have been loading and cocking a rifle for him, pointing it at yourself, and painting a big bulls-eye on your chest.
i can see you're the kind of person who gets their rocks off saying 'tough shit' to people when something unfortunate happens... presumable because of the false sense of superiority it gives you. i bet you laugh at people in the southeast when a hurricane comes through, saying 'oh, they should've built there house somewhere safe. like where i live, in my parents' house'.
presumably, you are perfect, and i'm sorry if i and most of the other people you meet in the course of your day fail to see that. but the ignoramuses in this group - myself included - may feel that life is complex, and that sometimes don't work according to some little rulebook of 'how things should work'.
let's see how profitable power is... in line with your simplistic capitalist arguments, i could say 'if producing power wasn't profitable enough, people would go into other industries... like making steel'. interestingly enough, there are steel plants in the northwest that have ceased production, and are selling power full-time to california because they are able to sell it as several hundred times the market price.
anyway, keep yelling tough shit, because no matter where you live, power shortages aren't going to be to long in arriving...
some cracker in china needs to be double tapped in the back of the head
some idiot at cal-iso needs to be fired.
let's have a reality check about people doing prison time... these computers weren't cracked on there own. a specific person or group of people spent a lot of time breaking into them. that person or people deserve to be in prison.
the reasons a metric calendar makes no sense are very, very easy to see.
1. the earth completely rotates around it's axis every 24 hours.
2. the moon rotates around the earth about every 30 days
3. the earth rotates around the sun about every (24 hour) days.
whatever, this idea is like deciding to speak exclusively in pig latin. ie, it is more complicated and messy than the existing solution, and makes no sense.
at least do it in a power of 2 radix. radices of 10 don't make sense anymore either... just a little less arbitrary as the gregorian method.
by your own admission, you can't figure out what day of the week it's going to be in the future in your head...
why don't you try artificial respiration? it really beats that old fashioned breathing...
donald knuth admired conway, and without people like knuth and conway, you wouldn't have your precious little palm. it your going to eat the fruit, don't knock the farmers
in the defense of the researchers' efforts, isn't this primarily positioned to be a low down-time/lower-cost fix for more efficient redistribution of power across longer distances?
the main upside, as i read it, is that for a couple hundred thousand and a few weeks of work, they can make a 15% increase in the normal capacity of a high tension wire, with much higher peak carrying capacity.
canada might not have a binding constitution, but then again, they're not as owned by corporate interests as the US. why no universal health care here? because wealthy people can make more off of running private hospitals and vile, vile HMOs.
you're right, Canada's not perfect, but the people there enjoy, on the average, a higher quality life than people in the US. maybe there's middle ground.
Slashdot Mirror
your post is kind of nonsensical. really, you should be fine just as long as you keep them at this camp all year long, the camp doesn't have an internet connection, the camp doesn't have an age limit on attendees, your child never grows up and moves out, and the other children at the camp are never exposed to porn and tell your child about it.
really though, you're not doing your kid(s) any favors by not talking about sex or letting them online. they can get pregnant (impregnate others) whether or not you talk to them about sex, and they can still contract STDs that can rob you of any hope of grandchildren.
okay, i was being harsh, too.
i realize that cutting out porn is cutting the top of an iceberg, but i think his self-realization was the key.
to quote a great american hero, "knowing is half the battle" (see, pop culture has absolutely no influence on us...)
when did the government enter the discussion!?
this is a parent raising his kid in his own way... this isn't a censorship issue.
you know, you really aren't too open minded. opened mindedness goes both ways and you aren't even trying to see the other person's point, and it really shows.
you cannot get away from nudity == sex == pornography.
i would dispute all of those equalities.
first, nudity is totally natural. no one should be made to feel ashamed of their bodies.
second, sex is something that people are not born able to do. have you not noticed the physiological phenomena of adolescence and puberty? children begin to sexually mature and begin to have sexual feelings between the ages of 11-13ish. has this been totally lost on this discussion. sex can be a wonderful thing, but is tough to explain to an 11 year old, because they might not have those urges yet... and even if they do, might be have the requisite rough time coming to terms with them.
third, porn is distasteful to a lot of intelligent adults. it objectifies women and men and rarely reflects on the emotional side of sex, it never deals with PREGNANCY, nor people contracting STDs. porn offers a very different view of sex than reality, and many parents think that it's wise to not freely let their kids view porn (even knowing that they'll probably see it anyway).
this guy says that he felt that he was starting to objectify women from looking at porn to frequently, so he prevented himself from viewing it. are you saying that this is just an empty gesture because we live in a slightly farenheit451ish society?
at least he recognized his problem and made an effort, which speaks to his credit, and the credit or his upbringing. even if it was futile.
face facts - putting down people like that may point to your own personal shortcomings, and to the shortcoming of your parents and the job that they did raising you. you're throwing spears in a grass hut.
i occasionally view porn. i also went to a top-tier school. and i was an eagle scout... blah, blah, blah.
she's 11.
there's a philosophical 'paradox' involving imprecise definitions and induction... it's the 'heap problem.' in a nutshell, you have a few scattered pieces of corn on the ground. that's obviously not a heap. you also know that adding one more piece of corn won't make a difference in the 'heapness' of a pile of corn. so you add one more piece of corn, and it's not a heap. lather, rinse, repeat infinitely - and there's the 'paradox'.
(i don't want people missing the point and discussing possible solutions to this)
my point is that at some point, a kid is too young to look at porn. if a 5 year old looking at porn doesn't disturb you... then i'd wonder a little.
so when does someone cease to be too young? i'd definitely say that it depends on the person in question, but that it would be older than 11 and younger than 17.
maybe the kid will find some other way of accessing it (buying playboys at flea markets when you're 13-14 is a thrill, i assure you). but i think the parent has the responsibility of trying to prevent their kids from seeing porn until they've reached a point where they're mature enough.
you don't let young kids play with gun unsupervised, and you don't let them play with bleach and ammonia... so don't think that this is a black or white censorship issue. there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. and the freedom of where to draw that line should belong to the parents.
PS. 3 things:
the masses aren't uneducated, they are stupid.
you miss the point of 'things js mill never had to worry about'... the point as i understand it is this: if jsm had to worry about kids looking at triple-penetrations or getting abducted by 45 year old perverts they met in chat rooms, he might have rethought the whole tyranny of the masses stuff. just like the founding fathers may or may not have been more careful with the wording of the 2nd amendment if they had foreseen AK47s and teflon coated bullets...
don't brag about reaching the karma cap. you can do that by just post nonsense very frequently. just don't brag about karma, period.
i just wasted all that time under the misunderstanding that you were replying to the original story... my bad... i will try to read more carefullly.
that being said, that tool sounds not too different from sending traffic through a proxy and logging there... which really doesn't bother me as much as it does you.
again, remember that there are some pretty f*cked up people out there. just like anywhere else. and you should tell your kids not to take candy from strangers on- or offline.
bravo
some good advice.
save your pity
this parent has a legitimate concern. and while your point has some validity, you are grossly simplifying a complex situation.
first of all: there are parents out there that are domineering and controlling, and sometimes their kids suffer for it - but sometimes they turn out just fine, too. just as often as i've seen less than stellar parenting result in 'angry and rebellious' people, i've seen it result in wonderful and decent people who have no trouble dealing with life or society. that broad generalization is flat out wrong, and i'm sure you realize that.
back to the point, the person submitting this story is trying to figure out how to give his step-daughter as much freedom online as possible. you, as a (presumably) mature person, would almostly certainly be able to realize not to give an anonymous chatter your address and full name. or not to give out credit card numbers to dubious sites. or not to go to goat.se.cx... however, a kid might not be aware of the dangers in this behaviour. and it's not just a learning experience... chatting with a stranger has gotten more than a couple of people killed or kidnapped. i seem to think that either of those scenarios could be much more detrimental to the normal development and socialization of a child than a domineering parent...
this guy is trying to moniter his step daughters activity, and try to prevent her from seeing things she might not really be ready to see. he's not tying her up in the basement or keeping her under lock and key. contemplating filtering software or monitering someone's traffic is hardly "seeking complete control of another humam being." really, underparenting can be just as bad as overparenting....
save your righteous indignation for M$ attacks on open source or Rambus patent stories.
say what you want, but you didn't mention RC cola, J&M insurance co., smutty nose beer, or asic sneakers... the advertisers seek brand recognition, and you've illustrated how well they've achieved their goals...
would it help if they selectively picked and chose only fuzzy happy cases??
guess what! that nativity scene was unconstitutional (build it off public property, then), and the nazis and kkk have a right to march where ever the hell they want (if they have a permit, which under constitutional protection they have a right to obtain...)
just because these cases leave a bitter tast in you mouth doesn't mean the ACLU is wrong. they have always worked on the principle that no one is going to pass a law saying "section 1a. everyone hereby loses their right to free speech" - free speech is eroded gradually. all cases that abridge freedom of expression are going to be targeted with equal energy.
i would actually think that this would be comforting, that they aren't subjective about what cases they take on...
that being said, not all people believe in free speech. those who don't probably shouldn't join...
exactly.. it sounds pretty good.
this is what's bad and unconstitutional:
with regards to performance....
"...Sexually explicit performance" means a motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or other presentation that, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual excitement, erotic fondling, sexual intercourse, or sadomasochistic abuse. Sexually explicit performance includes, but is not limited to , any performance described in this subdivision..."
i believe the term is 'overly broad'. laws that limit free speech exist, but must meet extremely stringent requirements.
also, the law doesn't apply only to "obscene" material, but in fact extends to it. the law also covers "sexually explicit material".
in their defense, this law is meant to apply only to brick&mortar and online porn retailers... but good intent doesn't count for much. they still have to be very careful with the wording of the law...
Okay, here's a reality check:
The ACLU is an advocate/lobbying group for the for the First Amendment.
Examine the degree to which the ACLU is "psychotic" and how they pursue there goals "to the point of stupidity", and then compare your finding with the tobacco lobby, the gun lobby, the energy lobby, etc... - you will find the ACLU is very typical in there zeal. how they are very atypical is in their ideals.
everyone who supports the ACLU eventually wonders if they take their cause too far... however, it hard to underestimate the extent to which they have preserved our (fragile) freedoms. rousseau (i think) said something to the extend that in a free society, we are only as free as the most oppressed among us...
remember that the ACLU is a product of the tireless efforts by politicians and special interest (read: religious right's) groups to take away the freedoms we're guaranteed in the constitution's bill of rights. and while the ACLU is liberal, supporting the first amendment should have nothing but bipartisan support - free speech seems to be an even greater concern to most conservatives (i am chagrined to say.. as a 'flaming liberal' myself).
i stand by my words.
if you in fact did this, and were not fired (whether or not your super was violating company policy), you were lucky.
fine, it was ballsy. fine, your boss was in the wrong. doesn't change the fact that if your boss had the desire to fire you, you would have been loading and cocking a rifle for him, pointing it at yourself, and painting a big bulls-eye on your chest.
oh, how pathetic..
i can see you're the kind of person who gets their rocks off saying 'tough shit' to people when something unfortunate happens... presumable because of the false sense of superiority it gives you. i bet you laugh at people in the southeast when a hurricane comes through, saying 'oh, they should've built there house somewhere safe. like where i live, in my parents' house'.
presumably, you are perfect, and i'm sorry if i and most of the other people you meet in the course of your day fail to see that. but the ignoramuses in this group - myself included - may feel that life is complex, and that sometimes don't work according to some little rulebook of 'how things should work'.
let's see how profitable power is... in line with your simplistic capitalist arguments, i could say 'if producing power wasn't profitable enough, people would go into other industries... like making steel'. interestingly enough, there are steel plants in the northwest that have ceased production, and are selling power full-time to california because they are able to sell it as several hundred times the market price.
anyway, keep yelling tough shit, because no matter where you live, power shortages aren't going to be to long in arriving...
Sunday June 10, @12:53AM EDT kmade offtopic post on slashdot how to get fired in the stupidest way possible, in feeble attempt to impress others.
some cracker in china needs to be double tapped in the back of the head
some idiot at cal-iso needs to be fired.
let's have a reality check about people doing prison time... these computers weren't cracked on there own. a specific person or group of people spent a lot of time breaking into them. that person or people deserve to be in prison.
is it short enough to fit in the margin of your notes?
x^n+y^n=z^n is kappup for n2
"3. the earth rotates around the sun about every (24 hour) **365** days"
okay, i didn't preview my posting. shoot me.
no one who doesn't need a palm pilot to figure out the date would have any problem with the omission anyway...
at best, it's funny.
the reasons a metric calendar makes no sense are very, very easy to see.
1. the earth completely rotates around it's axis every 24 hours.
2. the moon rotates around the earth about every 30 days
3. the earth rotates around the sun about every (24 hour) days.
whatever, this idea is like deciding to speak exclusively in pig latin. ie, it is more complicated and messy than the existing solution, and makes no sense.
at least do it in a power of 2 radix. radices of 10 don't make sense anymore either... just a little less arbitrary as the gregorian method.
you are retarded.
by your own admission, you can't figure out what day of the week it's going to be in the future in your head...
why don't you try artificial respiration? it really beats that old fashioned breathing...
donald knuth admired conway, and without people like knuth and conway, you wouldn't have your precious little palm. it your going to eat the fruit, don't knock the farmers
the beautiful part is that this plan is thinking 2-3 years into the future. i'd settle for them just thinking ..
in the defense of the researchers' efforts, isn't this primarily positioned to be a low down-time/lower-cost fix for more efficient redistribution of power across longer distances?
the main upside, as i read it, is that for a couple hundred thousand and a few weeks of work, they can make a 15% increase in the normal capacity of a high tension wire, with much higher peak carrying capacity.
so irritating...
they answer your question, completely, totally, and effectively, on the first page of the article.
make some kind of effort.
canada might not have a binding constitution, but then again, they're not as owned by corporate interests as the US. why no universal health care here? because wealthy people can make more off of running private hospitals and vile, vile HMOs.
you're right, Canada's not perfect, but the people there enjoy, on the average, a higher quality life than people in the US. maybe there's middle ground.