You seem to think that there are a lot of parents who try to control their kids' every move. I submit that reasonable restrictions (Be home by 10:00. No video games until your homework is done.) don't stunt kids' understanding of freedom.
I'm not a parent yet. However when I do, they can do whatever they want when they are independent adults. However while I am still legally responsible for their wellbeing, and they are still living in my house, they will have to abide by whatever restrictions I believe are appropriate.
I believe that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, and the level of freedom I grant my kids will depend on the level of responsibility they demonstrate. Defining responsibility to one's kids is what parenting is all about.
That presumes that everyone in the U.S. is in public school, and that no money comes from state or local taxes.
Breaking it down like that doesn't even begin to accurately reflect our educational spending. Not even close. Either he posted those figures in either woeful ignorance, or with intent to deceive.
- At the moment, the US spends $50 per person per year on education. - Besides, it's pretty well established that people will do more productive work on a 35-hour week than a 40+-hour one.
I don't suppose you'd care to cite any sources to back up those claims, especially regarding education. 5 minutes on Google brought me to a very different (though slightly dated) per-student spending figure.
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. I imagine the civil rights movement would have ended very differently if the issue had been settled by referendum.
One must recognize that Microsoft is threatened by the open source community, and that they see that many OSS solutions of today are close to their solutions in functionality.
I recognize no such thing. That claim has been made here for 10 years now, and it is no more true today than it was then.
Until I see some significant market share gains by OSS (I'll use desktop Linux as the benchmark), at the expense of Microsoft, then I will remain unconvinced of the threat posed by OSS.
I interpreted your comments about people who deny GCC as directed at the poster to whom you were replying. My mistake.
Because there's a large proportion of the population that is, without any knowledge of the subject, willing to loudly declare that the the very idea of global warming is preposterous.
And there is an equally large, vocal population whose knowledge of GCC is limited to fictional doomsday cinema.
Both groups contribute little to a practical response to anthropogenic GCC, yet their shrill voices drown out the people who really know what's going on. As another poster mentioned, GCC has turned into a vehicle to further already-established agendas, and that's what's killing meaningful discussions on the subject.
But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem.
And I think that what you said there supports his whole point, that one party refuses to acknowledge that there may not be a problem.
He never denied that climate change is hapening, nor that we aren't contributing to it. Enough with the strawmen, and respond to what he actually said next time.
On the other hand, she (and other Democratic congressional leaders) have done little to change the course of our country since they gained control of congress. They have the "power of the purse," yet have done nothing with that power to correct our course.
If I were you, I wouldn't expect any miracles to happen within the next few years, regardless of who is in the White House.
"I can't figure out how your example of a 'voluntary' rating system on a video stream creating a clear environment of censorship is supposed to debunk the argument that putting a 'voluntary' rating system on another video stream has no relationship to the discussion of censorship on the second stream."
Because at the movies, you (the parent) don't get to decide that it's OK for your kid to see what a third party has deemed unacceptable. At home, even with a V-chip TV, you (again as the parent) define the boundaries (or lack thereof) for your kid's viewing habits.
"Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far"
Isn't this one of those things that a lot of people here thought the Democrats would fix once they took congress? Or is it simply OK now that the Democrats support warrant-less wiretaps?
Either way, we're getting a valuable lesson in two-party politics.
Oh, and it's not mandating something that will never and can never actually work.
I imagine that a lot of parents who do use the v-chip features would disagree with you on that, unless you believe the little tots are cracking their TVs and circumventing the blocks.
If you cannot tell how a movies played in a theater are similar to movies played on a TV, perhaps this really isn't the conversation for you.
Pretentious, condescending tone aside, even you have to understand the fundamental difference between the two. When you go to the movies, you have ZERO control of whether or not your kid is allowed to see certain movies.
However at home you have ABSOLUTE control of whether or not your kid is allowed to see certain movies. The V-chip simply lets parents define the parameters.
They're at complete opposite ends of the "parental control/consent" spectrum. Unless, of course, you're looking at this from the poor deprived kids' perspective, complaining that they can't see certain movies/shows that parents deem inappropriate.
If the confilict with your child has gotten to that point, then yes, you are an irresponsible parent for not turning off the power to every room.
If it's gotten to that point, you have completely failed as a parent.
And if you don't know how a V-chip can cause censorship, just go and try to see a movie in a theater that is either 'voluntarily' rated NC-17, or has not been 'voluntarily' rated.
What the hell does the V-chip have to do with movie theatres? You're comparing two completely unrelated things!
Indeed, giving parents the means to easily restrict their children's TV viewing is the worst kind of nanny-state government meddling that faces freedom-loving Americans today.
Seriously, this isn't any more of a government intrusion than the mandated nutrition information on the side of cereal boxes.
Come back and cry when the government makes the actual restrictions mandatory.
I understand; Slashbots are supposed to react to both the RIAA and politicians with knee-jerk indignation, regardless of how little they understand the matter at hand.
The liberalism the Founding Fathers embraced resembled nothing of the Marxism that characterizes the left today. I find it hard to believe that the people who so strictly limited the boundaries of government power in the Constitution would endorse today's leftist ideals of a powerful federal government and high taxes.
Perhaps now we can at least dispel the myth here on Slashdot that Democrats will fix our elections processes. People here can't seem to bring themselves to admit that Democrats have as much to gain from a flawed system as any other establishment politician.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to think that there are a lot of parents who try to control their kids' every move. I submit that reasonable restrictions (Be home by 10:00. No video games until your homework is done.) don't stunt kids' understanding of freedom.
I'm not a parent yet. However when I do, they can do whatever they want when they are independent adults. However while I am still legally responsible for their wellbeing, and they are still living in my house, they will have to abide by whatever restrictions I believe are appropriate.
I believe that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, and the level of freedom I grant my kids will depend on the level of responsibility they demonstrate. Defining responsibility to one's kids is what parenting is all about.
And for every "involved" parent, there are three Slashdotters who consider restrictions on kids' Internet usage unfair.
...I blame West Virginia.
That presumes that everyone in the U.S. is in public school, and that no money comes from state or local taxes.
Breaking it down like that doesn't even begin to accurately reflect our educational spending. Not even close. Either he posted those figures in either woeful ignorance, or with intent to deceive.
Current data puts the average per-student spending at $8,701. I'm really curious about where you got YOUR figures.
- At the moment, the US spends $50 per person per year on education.
- Besides, it's pretty well established that people will do more productive work on a 35-hour week than a 40+-hour one.
I don't suppose you'd care to cite any sources to back up those claims, especially regarding education. 5 minutes on Google brought me to a very different (though slightly dated) per-student spending figure.
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. I imagine the civil rights movement would have ended very differently if the issue had been settled by referendum.
One must recognize that Microsoft is threatened by the open source community, and that they see that many OSS solutions of today are close to their solutions in functionality.
I recognize no such thing. That claim has been made here for 10 years now, and it is no more true today than it was then.
Until I see some significant market share gains by OSS (I'll use desktop Linux as the benchmark), at the expense of Microsoft, then I will remain unconvinced of the threat posed by OSS.
I interpreted your comments about people who deny GCC as directed at the poster to whom you were replying. My mistake.
Because there's a large proportion of the population that is, without any knowledge of the subject, willing to loudly declare that the the very idea of global warming is preposterous.
And there is an equally large, vocal population whose knowledge of GCC is limited to fictional doomsday cinema.
Both groups contribute little to a practical response to anthropogenic GCC, yet their shrill voices drown out the people who really know what's going on. As another poster mentioned, GCC has turned into a vehicle to further already-established agendas, and that's what's killing meaningful discussions on the subject.
(apologies in advance)
Do we really need that kind of visual, considering fanbois' well-documented oral fixation with everything Apple?
*ducks*
But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem.
And I think that what you said there supports his whole point, that one party refuses to acknowledge that there may not be a problem.
He never denied that climate change is hapening, nor that we aren't contributing to it. Enough with the strawmen, and respond to what he actually said next time.
Puh-leeze. All you conspiracy nuts said that Bush would postpone the '04 election (indefinitely, of course) to retain power.
Do us a favor and go away. You give the rest of us change-advocates a bad name.
On the other hand, she (and other Democratic congressional leaders) have done little to change the course of our country since they gained control of congress. They have the "power of the purse," yet have done nothing with that power to correct our course.
If I were you, I wouldn't expect any miracles to happen within the next few years, regardless of who is in the White House.
"I can't figure out how your example of a 'voluntary' rating system on a video stream creating a clear environment of censorship is supposed to debunk the argument that putting a 'voluntary' rating system on another video stream has no relationship to the discussion of censorship on the second stream."
Because at the movies, you (the parent) don't get to decide that it's OK for your kid to see what a third party has deemed unacceptable. At home, even with a V-chip TV, you (again as the parent) define the boundaries (or lack thereof) for your kid's viewing habits.
"You claim that you have ZERO control over what movies your kids go to see"
Nope, not even close.
"When you go to the movies, you have ZERO control of whether or not your kid is allowed to see certain movies."
As in there are certain movies that theaters won't even let kids into, regardless of whether or not you as the parent are OK with it.
Not that it matters anymore. You seem more interested in being obtuse than having a reasonable discussion.
"Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far"
Isn't this one of those things that a lot of people here thought the Democrats would fix once they took congress? Or is it simply OK now that the Democrats support warrant-less wiretaps?
Either way, we're getting a valuable lesson in two-party politics.
Oh, and it's not mandating something that will never and can never actually work.
I imagine that a lot of parents who do use the v-chip features would disagree with you on that, unless you believe the little tots are cracking their TVs and circumventing the blocks.
If you cannot tell how a movies played in a theater are similar to movies played on a TV, perhaps this really isn't the conversation for you.
Pretentious, condescending tone aside, even you have to understand the fundamental difference between the two. When you go to the movies, you have ZERO control of whether or not your kid is allowed to see certain movies.
However at home you have ABSOLUTE control of whether or not your kid is allowed to see certain movies. The V-chip simply lets parents define the parameters.
They're at complete opposite ends of the "parental control/consent" spectrum. Unless, of course, you're looking at this from the poor deprived kids' perspective, complaining that they can't see certain movies/shows that parents deem inappropriate.
If the confilict with your child has gotten to that point, then yes, you are an irresponsible parent for not turning off the power to every room.
If it's gotten to that point, you have completely failed as a parent.
And if you don't know how a V-chip can cause censorship, just go and try to see a movie in a theater that is either 'voluntarily' rated NC-17, or has not been 'voluntarily' rated.
What the hell does the V-chip have to do with movie theatres? You're comparing two completely unrelated things!
First of all, how does this take away freedom from anybody? Do you understand what the V-chip is?
There is this thing called an 'off switch' and, failing that, circuit breakers.
Yeah, if you don't shut off the power to every room with a TV, you're an irresponsible parent. Good call.
Indeed, giving parents the means to easily restrict their children's TV viewing is the worst kind of nanny-state government meddling that faces freedom-loving Americans today.
Seriously, this isn't any more of a government intrusion than the mandated nutrition information on the side of cereal boxes.
Come back and cry when the government makes the actual restrictions mandatory.
This
I understand; Slashbots are supposed to react to both the RIAA and politicians with knee-jerk indignation, regardless of how little they understand the matter at hand.
The liberalism the Founding Fathers embraced resembled nothing of the Marxism that characterizes the left today. I find it hard to believe that the people who so strictly limited the boundaries of government power in the Constitution would endorse today's leftist ideals of a powerful federal government and high taxes.
Preaching to the anti-Microsoft choir; it's not just for Slashdot karma anymore!
Oh you're one of those eh? "The Democrats do it too!"... so it's fine when the Republicans do it!
Of course, that's not what I said, but I suppose that strawman is easier to knock down.
Perhaps now we can at least dispel the myth here on Slashdot that Democrats will fix our elections processes. People here can't seem to bring themselves to admit that Democrats have as much to gain from a flawed system as any other establishment politician.