While it is true that faith can't be proven by it's inherent nature, if a faith is false, logic dictates that it can surely be disproven.
Logic fail.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. What logic dictates is that there are True statements which cannot be proven. A "disproof" commonly takes the logic form of proving True that "X is False". Logic dictates it is possible for "your faith is False" to be factually True and unprovable.
Of course a reasonable and rational person does not require a mathematical proof in order to dismiss something as blatantly silly and absurd. And if your faith is even remotely derived from a some fairytale book with a garden of walking-talking snakes and magic fruit, and stories of Pharaoh's Sorcerers magicking sticks into snakes, then yeah your faith can of course be dismissed as silly and absurd. No formal mathematical proof is needed.
Pepsi is insane and EVIL. It's going to destroy this country and all of western civilization. This is a matter of self defense and survival. Pepsi. Must. Be. Destroyed.
I have given $30,000 to the anti-Pepsi Super-PAC. I just wish I could afford to give more.
You forget that there is no way to decide in polynomial time if the text you got is the plaintext.
Actually there is a way to tackle that issue. A plaintext is typically highly compressible, while a failed decryption is effectively random. There is there is a statistically zero probability for any failed decryption to be as compressible as the true text. So you reformulate the problem as "What password returns the shortest length when decryption AND compression are applied". If by sheer fluke you do get a junk password yielding a garbage result, you can simply try again asking for the password that returns the second-most-compressible result.
This technique yields the interesting result that you want to apply an optimal compression algorithm to your files before encrypting them. That way you are encrypting effectively random data, so that an attacker cannot use this sort of method to identify a successful decryption.
At that point it depends upon whether the attacker knows (or can guess) any other information that can be used to identify a successful decryption. For example if he knows the file type, or keywords that you are likely to appear in the text, that can be used to automatically identify or massively narrow down potentially correct decryptions. If it is text you wrote, then an attacker could use a sample of your other writing to match against the statistics of your personal writing style. People have already demonstrated programs that can match multiple texts from the same author with significant reliability. The attacker would probably have to sort through a number of false-positive password candidates, but if the attacker knows (or can guess) anything significant about the encrypted data there is a good chance he can decrypt it.
This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
You're both crackpots. The only difference is that reality has smacked this guy in the face and he's admitting/recovering from his crackpottery while you run off further into lala land.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. we still aren't sure whether it is us
No reasonable and well informed person can deny that it's happening. No reasonable and well informed person can deny that we are causing it.
It's basic physics. Sunlight comes in through the atmosphere as visible light. That sunlight hits the ground and becomes thermal (infrared) radiation. Infrared radiation is mostly trapped by the atmosphere. The NATURAL warming effect is already 50 degrees. There is no sane way to claim that increasing the atmospheric trapping effect won't increase the size of the existing 50-degree warming effect.
And I'm not aware of anyone incoherent enough to deny that humans are indeed responsible for the increasing levels of CO2 (and other infrared-trapping gasses) in the atmosphere.
It is hard to predict how big or how fast the warming will be, and it's really hard to predict what the secondary effects will be, but the effect itself is undeniable basic physics. The closest you can get to denying this human-caused-warming effect is to say that maybe there's also some natural random warming going on anyway, and that we're only responsible for the additional warming on top of any "natural" variation that may or may not be happening.
too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...)
You're a NUT. A delusional NUT. You have taken radical partisan politics to the point of total paranoid delusion. Anti-civilization? Anti-western? Anti-capitalism? Dismantling civilization? You're a LOON off in lala land. This guy came up with some new age mystical Gaia crap about the earth being a living self-protecting organism, and you're worse than he is. At least he has enough of a grasp on reality to let it drag him back to reason. You're denying the laws of physics, and have fallen into some paranoid delusion that the entire scientific community are "anti-civilization", that half of all politicians are "anti-civilization", that the half the population electing them are "anti-civilization". Yeah..... and the new highway construction is really a secret landing strip for aliens. And they are trying to turn your children gay. And they want to use aborted fetuses to make tofu.
Who Gives and Who Doesn't. [go.com]. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
I don't accuse it of any deliberate bias, but I certainly do question the methodology and what's included in "charitable".
I'll tell you what. I will accept at face value your link's figure that Conservatives are 18% more likely to donate blood. However I'm not prepared to accept the figure that Conservatives are supposedly "30% more charitable" until I see some indication that that 30% actually is charity.
Donating money to build yourself a neighborhood church is certainly tax deductible, but in my opinion that is no more "charitable giving" than building yourself a neighborhood golf club. And donating money to maintain your church and pay salaries for ministers and whatnot is no more "charity" than money given to maintain and pay salaries for your golf club.
And "food aid programs for starving children" need to be discounted according to whatever percentage of their expenses and efforts are actually diverted to Bibles and proselytizing efforts.
Furthermore, while certain Faith Based Charities (I'm looking at you, Salvation Army) primarily do real charity work, I am SORELY TEMPTED TO PUT EACH DOLLAR IN THE -1 COLUMN when their website has (or had) a Bible quote that homosexuals should be put to death and they lobby one or more governments for homosexuality to be CRIMINAL, and when instead of delivering toy-donations to children they instead DESTROY the donated toys if they are Harry Potter themed or Twilight themed or any other "non-christian" toys they get. They don't even hand those toys over to some other charity to use, they just destroy toys that people tried to donate to poor/sick children. The homosexual-thing is evil but comprehensible, but seriously WTF sort of twisted fuck goes around accepting toy donations for sick children and destroying those toy donations???
In a "normal" radio-using device you have an electronic circuit to detect or create an exact sort of signal at a particular frequency range. For example you have one sort of circuit to detect FM tpy signals and a completely different circuit to detect AM radio signals, and a TV has circuitry that transforms exact-TV-format signals into the needed picture and sound signals. The advantage of these specific electronics is that they are cheaper and use less power.
A software defined radio picks up (or transmits) radio waves basically as a graph. A digitized wave form. A software defined radio uses a CPU to examine (or create) the radio wave. This means that simply by loading in the right software you can detect (or create) absolutely any sort of signal at all. You have one circuit that can handle up AM, FM, TV, cellphone signals, wifi signals, or anything. They can also use advanced digital methods to eliminate various kinds of noise.
The downside of software defined radio is that the circuitry needs to be bigger, faster, and more power-hungry to handle fast computation.
Software defined radio has the government worried and paralyzed. The government is used to individually regulating the frequencies and power levels and signal characteristics of each kind of radio-using device. An AM/FM radio specifically does not pick up police or cell phone frequencies, and things like CBs and walkie-talkies and cellphones and baby monitors all have specific power levels and specific frequencies they can broadcast on, and they only broadcast in specific radio formats. And those limits are hard-baked into the devices by their exact circuitry. Software defined radio throws that entire idea out the window. A software defined radio is going to have some inherent power limit based on the exact hardware, and some minimum and maximum frequency range based on the hardware, but generally it can handle a very broad range from low frequency bands to high frequency bands, and they can send/detect absolutely any radio format over that entire range, and they can do it at full power. There's no way to regulate "don't detect police/cell frequencies", and no way to regulate "don't broadcast FM on what is supposed to be an AM band", and there is no way to regulate different power levels on different bands. Once you sell a software defined radio, the end user can load in any software they want.
Software defined radio is revolutionary. It is incredibly flexible. And that flexibility is exactly the "problem" for government regulators.
In a rational and well informed world, there would be absolutely nothing objectionable about the bill. But of course we don't live in a rational or well informed world. The people raising this bill in the legislature, and the teachers who will embrace this bill in the classroom, all have the peculiar notion that Creationism qualifies as "scientific information" and that that Creationist hatchet jobs against evolution qualify as "objective scientific critique".
The intended purpose of the bill is to promote a particular religious doctrine and the primary effect of the bill will be to promote a particular doctrine, which renders the bill unconstitutional regardless of how the text is superficially worded.
The best-case scenario is that every teacher who tries to use this bill to spew garbage is rapidly identified and dragged into court and smacked down by a cluefull judge. The best case scenario is that untold students have their science education actively sabotaged for as short a time period as possible, while countless students have their educations even further crippled by massive education budget failures as cash-strapped school districts get slammed with massive damages and legal fees.
A rhetorical question, are you going to argue that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the written word? It says "freedom of speech", and by your argument we're supposed to ignore the author's own elaborations on the meaning of their own words and we're supposed to interpret "speech" and "establishment of religion" in absurdly narrow manners.
Presuming you agree that Freedom of Speech is intended to encompass the written word, and acknowledge that the First Amendment must be interpreted in that manner, then you acknowledge that your argument is ridiculous.
If you're having some disagreement with the interpretation it may be due to awkward nature of the 200+ year-old language style, or perhaps you or one of your teachers had some theocratic agenda that conflicts with interpreting the First Amendment in accordance with the original intent.
You really should read James Madison's writings on the subject. He's the one who introduced it at he Constitutional Convention, he's the one who led the discussion on voting to pass it, and he's the primary author of the dang thing. If there is ANYONE in history qualified to clarify any clear up any confusion on what it means and how to read it properly, it is indisputably Madison.
In case you don't bother, I'll give you the cliffnotes version. Along with explaining how the First Amendment imposes a complete separation between church and state, he lays out a concrete example still applicable today demonstrating that even the current government is in flagrant violation of the Constitution UNDER-enforcing separation of church and state.
It's funny how some people keep trying to dump all the blame on Jefferson. As you read the quotes below you should notice that Jefferson's only crime was his greater talent for language.
James Madison variously wrote "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters", "total separation of the church from the State", "separation between religion and & Gov't", "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority", "distinction between Religion and Civil Government".
And if you read the full quotes in context you'll see that every one of those quotes is a "less terse" and less catchy way of saying "Separation of Church and State", and he is stating that Separation of Church and State is the intended and correct interpretation of the First Amendment. And as a reminder, Madison introduced the Establishment clause at the Constitutional Convention, Madison was the primary author of the Establishment clause, Madison led the discussion on voting to pass the Establishment clause. Madison is commonly known as the "Father of the Constitution" and "Father of the Bill of Rights" because he was the primary author of both. If there is ANYONE person in history qualified to elaborate on the accurate and intended meaning of the First Amendment, that person is indisputably James Madison.
It's comical the way some people obsess on Jefferson saying it's all his fault and he doesn't matter. Jefferson's claim to fame here is merely that he's a better wordsmith than Madison or anyone else at the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson merely did a better job putting the idea into a clear and catchy 5 terse words.
The Constitution grantees Freedom of Religion. And the only possible meaning of Freedom of Religion is Separation of Church and State. Our right of Freedom of Religion means we have a protected right against any use of the force and power of government for the purpose of imposing, promoting, suppressing, or prohibiting any particular religious beliefs or practices.
For example students have a protected right to pray in school if they choose to do so. School officials are prohibited from (ab)using their government-granted powers to prohibit or punish prayer. And school officials are equally prohibited from (ab)using their government-granted powers in any sort of attempt to enforce or induce students to pray.
If you ever read any sort of article ranting about some evil court ruling prohibiting students from praying in school, the author of the piece is grossly misinformed at best and full of shit at worse. I have seen many such articles, and each and every time I have typed the name of the case into Google and I've read the actual court ruling, and each and every time the ruling in fact did not prohibit students from praying in school. Each and every time the ruling in fact sanctioned school officials specifically for abusing their governmental powers for the purpose of imposing or promoting their desired religious practices upon students under their control. Sanctioned for violating the students' right of Freedom of Religion, the students' right to be free from some idiot hijacking their governmental powers to forcibly meddle in student's religious lives.
Freedom of Religion = Separation of Church and State = the force of government cannot be used for any purpose of favoring or oppressing particular religious beliefs and practices.
I don't know exactly what agenda has you upset over Separation of Church and State, but if the First Amendment is getting in the way of some desire to hijack the force of government to favor your proffered religious beliefs, or if it's getting in the way of some desire to oppress religions you dislike, too bad. Wannabe Theocrats have the Free Speech right to advocate their beliefs all they like, but the moment you attempt to hijack the Force of Government to infringe upon other people's Freedom of Religion you're damn well going to get smacked down in court. If you don't like it then perhaps we'd both be a lot happier if you moved to some other country that enjoys Theocracy, without that pesky Freedom of Religion stuff getting in the way.
Would you claim that Freedom of Speech doesn't protect the written word?
The First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech, and "Speech" was clearly intended in a broad sense to include talking as well as writing, drawing, and any other form of expressive communication.
The First Amendment protects Freedom of Religion, and "Religion" was clearly intended in a broad sense to include entire religions as well as any portion, including any individual religious belief or practice.
The First Amendment denies Congress any power to impose, prohibit, promote, or suppress, any overall religion as well as any particular beliefs or practices of a religious nature.
Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, but it is obviously absurd to permit state and local governments to infringe the Freedom of Speech, to infringe the Freedom of Religion, to engage in warrantless searches and seizures, or to deny people the right to legal defense and trial by jury in criminal cases. This absurdity was remedied by the 14th Amendment, and the Bill of Rights now applies to legislation passed at all levels of government. And I would be astounded and appalled at anyone arguing that state or local governments should have the power to violate the Bill of Rights.
All powers and authority of government officials and employees derive exclusively from powers granted to them by legislation. Government employees are unable to create rules or regulations violating the Bill of Rights because no legislature itself has the power to violate the Bill of Rights, and a legislature cannot create a law delegating to some official a power that the legislature itself does not posses.
No legislature can infringe upon Constitutional Rights, nor can any government official or employee wield governmental powers in any manner with an intent or effect of infringing upon Constitutional Rights.
School Prayer makes a perfect case study:
Students have the protected right of Freedom of Religion. Students have the freedom to pray if and how they want, so long as it is non-disruptive. Lighting a prayer-bonfire at any time would be extremely disruptive and criminal, screaming in the hallways between classes or during lunch would likely be disruptive, and talking above a whisper would potentially be distractive and disruptive during a class lesson. Students can however pray in school as much as they like so long as they aren't being bizarre and somehow disruptive about it.
Teachers and other school officials also have Freedom of Religion, so long as it does not disrupt their work or somehow infringe upon the students. For example they could of course pray during their off periods or pull out a Bible or Koran to quietly read while students take a test, however interrupting class time and holding students captive to recite Bible or Koran verses would obviously be just as disruptive as interrupting the class to recite baseball scores every day. It would also be an abuse of their powers to holding the students as a captive audience and placing the force of government upon their religious practice
Separation of Church and State. Students and officials are free to pray while in school, however government employees are forbidden to abuse their official powers to either promote or suppress prayer or any other practice by students under their control. A principal cannot punish a student for (appropriate-volume) prayer, nor can he hijack the Public Address system to forcibly impose his preferred prayer upon captive students. A principal or other school official cannot abuse their legislatively-granted-force-of-government powers with the purpose or effect of promoting or suppressing prayer by students.
It's important to note that descriptions of school prayer court battles are often grossly misinformed and grossly misleading. I've read countless articles of someone ranting about some horrible court ruling denying students the freedom to pray in schools, and each and every time I type the name of
Microsoft has solved the problem and applied a patch to their systems. The new patch is anticipated to keep the service up and stable for least 4 years.
Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.
You lost mere there. What are you suggesting is unenforced? What are you suggesting is still valid?
If you mean some "unenforced" rule about library cards, no. Public libraries are deliberately open to the public. There is no requirement to have a library card to enter the library and access any and all materials. A library card is only required if you wish to remove books from the building.
If you mean some "unenforced" rule about children in the adult section, no. It is Official Policy of the American Library Association that children have full and equal access to all materials. In fact they state it would be a violation of the Library Bill of Rights if any librarian attempted to deny a minor full access.
For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.
Financial and LEGAL reasons.
I don't know what legal reasons you are suggesting, other than the financial-legal issue of collecting fines. But again, the library is open to the public. Any library card limitations are merely a restriction on removing materials from the library, it is not any restriction on access.
In particular note the line "Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children". In other words don't bother the librarian with any such demands. The library doesn't restrict your child's access, and the library is not going to take responsibility for enforcing any such rules upon your child for you. If you want to limit your child's access then you should tell your child that is your rule. It is your personal right and your personal responsibility to raise your children and enforce your rules for them. You either have to trust your child to obey your rules, or you must supervise your children, and you may punish them if they break your parental rules. The library's mission is to make as much information as possible available to everyone, and the library isn't going to get involved in parenting your child for you.
If you read the Library Bill of Rights, items 1 and 2 are anti-censorship, and items 3 and 4 actually direct libraries to actively oppose attempts at censorship. In practice this means libraries actively fighting individuals, parents, organizations, and politicians, who attempt to restrict library content or who restrict access to library materials. Item 5 says libraries should not restrict access to library materials, specifically including any age-based restrictions.
And here it explicitly states that it is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights to remove content anyone claims is "harmful to minors", and that librarians should actively oppose those who attempt to do so.
American Librarians have a reputation for being mild-mannered, helpful, and neutral to the point of bland boringness... except for their intense opposition to censorship. Opposition with includes actively including and promoting anything that anyone attempts to restrict. Activists rarely get in fights with librarians because it almost always backfires. It almost always results in increased awareness and availability of the very materials they opposed.
It's probably just the case of them not considering something as basic as a "library card" an actual restriction.
It's not any meaningful restriction. Libraries are open to the public, even without a library card. Children can just walk in, sit down at a table, and read books from the 'adult' section all day long.
You only need a library card if you want to take books or other materials out on loan. For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.
The library's job is to make information available. It's not the librarian's responsibility to keep you (or your children) from seeing any random thing you might object to. It's not the librarian's job to guess that you have so religious or moral objection to blueberries, and it's not the librarian's job to protect you from seeing blueberries, and it's not the library's job to ensure your children or other people's children don't see blueberries just because you object to them. And I just realized some people might read "blueberries" as some sort of euphemism. No, it's just a random silly thing someone could object to.
Most libraries with computer terminals specifically do *not* point them into the room, but you have the reason for it backwards. It is not to protect people from random content that somebody might dislike. No, computers should be located with relatively private screens for the benefit of the library patron using the computer. It is so that people can research medical, sexual, religious, political, or other materials without undue fear of embarrassment or social pressure.
If your library has screens pointing into the middle of the room the perhaps you should raise *that* confidential research consideration with the librarians. I expect you will find librarians infinitely more responsive when the subject is patron confidentiality than when the subject is your desire to "protect" people from content you dislike.
I can tell my kids they aren't allowed to read the hot and heavy romance novels, and I can easily ensure they do not do so. But how easy is it to ensure they do not look at the publicly facing computer monitor in the middle of the library?
You can tell your kids not to look at Witches or anything occult related. And your neighbor can put a giant Witchcraft themed display on their front lawn for Halloween, complete with flashing lights.
And I'll certainly agree it's extremely not easy for you to ensure that they never see it. However it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job, to guess what parts of the world you want to conceal from your children. And it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job to enforce that rule for you. And it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job to ensure it is "easy" for you to enforce a "no seeing Witches" rule upon your children.
Sorry, I had a reflex reaction about repressive fundie American backwater wannabe censors. We actually had one our Vice President ticket 4 years ago. Fortunately she lost.
I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.
While it might raise some eyebrows, the American Library Association has an official policy supporting your right to do so.
Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users. [] Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users.
Children and young adults unquestionably possess First Amendment rights, including the right to receive information through the library in print, nonprint, or digital format. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them. Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected.
The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries cannot authorize librarians or library governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians. As Libraries: An American Value states, âoeWe affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services.â Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children'sâ"and only their childrenâ(TM)sâ"access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.
Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors.
Most Librarians, at least in the US, tend to have strong views against censorship. And that view includes opposing attempts to "protect" children from information some people consider objectionable. If a parent has an anti-blueberry fetish, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their child not to read books about blueberries. And it is the parent's right and responsibility to enforce that rule regarding their child. The library will not attempt to guess about such parental choices, and librarians will not attempt to enforce such rules upon other people's children.
Do you have any actual knowledge of typical librarian policies in your country? I'd be curious to know whether this was a globally typical attitude of librarians, or whether American librarians were exceptional in their anti-censorship zeal.
sets forth reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions
That is content neutral. Of course you can only use the computers during library hours, regardless of what website your viewing.
expressly prohibit any use of library equipment to access material that is obscene, child pornography, or 'harmful to minors' (consistent with any applicable state or local law);
Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually "harmful to minors." The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides. Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally.
Well duh, the library should have a policy stating "don't use these computers to commit a crime". However the library isn't in a position to judge content. And further note that pornography is not obscenity.
Which only goes to prove that they are about an agenda rather than facilitating access to information
Their "agenda is exactly to facilitate access to information. Period. Censorship destroys access to information. Combating censorship is the most important and most fundamental way to facilitate access to information.
otherwise they would not be actively promoting one sort of material over another
They are not choosing preferred books they want to promote. Wannabe censors are selecting the books and obstructing access to them. The library association is merely facilitating access to books where access is impaired.
As for the section you quote, particularly the bolded portion, you seem to contradict that quote. The statement defends a parent's right to restrict what their children access in the library
Try reading the sentence after it: Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.
It is parent's right and responsibility to raise and supervise their children. If a parent doesn't want their child drinking sugary sodas, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce that. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement. If a parent doesn't want their child viewing Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or some other religious materials, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement. If a parent doesn't want their child viewing Communist, Libertarian, Republican, or Democratic political materials, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement. If a parent doesn't want their child viewing the uncensored internet, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.
If you don't want your child drinking soda, tell them to stay away from the vending machine. If you don't want them reading religious materials then tell them to stay out of the religious section. If you don't want them reading politics then tell them to stay out of the political section. If you don't want them viewing the internet then tell them to stay away from the computers.
If you either don't trust them to obey your parenting, or if you wish to select acceptable from some area, then supervise your children.
The Library is not going to hassle some other library patron for having an image of Jesus being crucified up on the screen. If you want to protect your children against religious image then either tell them to stay away from the computers or supervise their computer use.
The library is not going to guess what random stuff you want to censor from your child. The library is not going to guess that you have some anti-blueberry fetish and take on some parenting role protecting your children against images of blueberries.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is true that faith can't be proven by it's inherent nature, if a faith is false, logic dictates that it can surely be disproven.
Logic fail.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. What logic dictates is that there are True statements which cannot be proven. A "disproof" commonly takes the logic form of proving True that "X is False". Logic dictates it is possible for "your faith is False" to be factually True and unprovable.
Of course a reasonable and rational person does not require a mathematical proof in order to dismiss something as blatantly silly and absurd. And if your faith is even remotely derived from a some fairytale book with a garden of walking-talking snakes and magic fruit, and stories of Pharaoh's Sorcerers magicking sticks into snakes, then yeah your faith can of course be dismissed as silly and absurd. No formal mathematical proof is needed.
-
Why can't Congress ever work together on something I want?
I believe the votes for Congress to leave session are usually bi-partisan.
-
Pepsi is insane and EVIL. It's going to destroy this country and all of western civilization. This is a matter of self defense and survival.
Pepsi.
Must.
Be.
Destroyed.
I have given $30,000 to the anti-Pepsi Super-PAC. I just wish I could afford to give more.
-
For sale:
Hole in the ground. Sucks massive amounts of your money into oblivion every month.
Price 2 billion dollars, or best offer.
-
You forget that there is no way to decide in polynomial time if the text you got is the plaintext.
Actually there is a way to tackle that issue. A plaintext is typically highly compressible, while a failed decryption is effectively random. There is there is a statistically zero probability for any failed decryption to be as compressible as the true text. So you reformulate the problem as "What password returns the shortest length when decryption AND compression are applied". If by sheer fluke you do get a junk password yielding a garbage result, you can simply try again asking for the password that returns the second-most-compressible result.
This technique yields the interesting result that you want to apply an optimal compression algorithm to your files before encrypting them. That way you are encrypting effectively random data, so that an attacker cannot use this sort of method to identify a successful decryption.
At that point it depends upon whether the attacker knows (or can guess) any other information that can be used to identify a successful decryption. For example if he knows the file type, or keywords that you are likely to appear in the text, that can be used to automatically identify or massively narrow down potentially correct decryptions. If it is text you wrote, then an attacker could use a sample of your other writing to match against the statistics of your personal writing style. People have already demonstrated programs that can match multiple texts from the same author with significant reliability. The attacker would probably have to sort through a number of false-positive password candidates, but if the attacker knows (or can guess) anything significant about the encrypted data there is a good chance he can decrypt it.
-
This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
You're both crackpots. The only difference is that reality has smacked this guy in the face and he's admitting/recovering from his crackpottery while you run off further into lala land.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening.
we still aren't sure whether it is us
No reasonable and well informed person can deny that it's happening.
No reasonable and well informed person can deny that we are causing it.
It's basic physics. Sunlight comes in through the atmosphere as visible light. That sunlight hits the ground and becomes thermal (infrared) radiation. Infrared radiation is mostly trapped by the atmosphere. The NATURAL warming effect is already 50 degrees. There is no sane way to claim that increasing the atmospheric trapping effect won't increase the size of the existing 50-degree warming effect.
And I'm not aware of anyone incoherent enough to deny that humans are indeed responsible for the increasing levels of CO2 (and other infrared-trapping gasses) in the atmosphere.
It is hard to predict how big or how fast the warming will be, and it's really hard to predict what the secondary effects will be, but the effect itself is undeniable basic physics. The closest you can get to denying this human-caused-warming effect is to say that maybe there's also some natural random warming going on anyway, and that we're only responsible for the additional warming on top of any "natural" variation that may or may not be happening.
too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...)
You're a NUT. A delusional NUT.
You have taken radical partisan politics to the point of total paranoid delusion. Anti-civilization? Anti-western? Anti-capitalism? Dismantling civilization? You're a LOON off in lala land. This guy came up with some new age mystical Gaia crap about the earth being a living self-protecting organism, and you're worse than he is. At least he has enough of a grasp on reality to let it drag him back to reason. You're denying the laws of physics, and have fallen into some paranoid delusion that the entire scientific community are "anti-civilization", that half of all politicians are "anti-civilization", that the half the population electing them are "anti-civilization". Yeah..... and the new highway construction is really a secret landing strip for aliens.
And they are trying to turn your children gay. And they want to use aborted fetuses to make tofu.
The laws of physics.
They're not optional.
-
They fired the cable guy before they even hired him!
Don't DO that!
We're in a slow economic recovery and it really fscks up the unemployment figures.
-
Samsung Means To Come
(Sound Recommended)
-
Under islam there wouldn't be any female nerds. Therefore slashdot would be full of 72,000 male virgins with nothing better to do.
And when they die they are given to a thousand Martyrs.
Silly Martyrs.... so one ever said they'd be getting female virgins.
-
Who Gives and Who Doesn't. [go.com]. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
I don't accuse it of any deliberate bias, but I certainly do question the methodology and what's included in "charitable".
I'll tell you what. I will accept at face value your link's figure that Conservatives are 18% more likely to donate blood. However I'm not prepared to accept the figure that Conservatives are supposedly "30% more charitable" until I see some indication that that 30% actually is charity.
Donating money to build yourself a neighborhood church is certainly tax deductible, but in my opinion that is no more "charitable giving" than building yourself a neighborhood golf club. And donating money to maintain your church and pay salaries for ministers and whatnot is no more "charity" than money given to maintain and pay salaries for your golf club.
I would also say that 8,000 Bibles for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And another 100,000 Bibles for for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And another nearly one million Bibles for for Hurricane Katrina evacuees doesn't much qualify as charity.
And "food aid programs for starving children" need to be discounted according to whatever percentage of their expenses and efforts are actually diverted to Bibles and proselytizing efforts.
Furthermore, while certain Faith Based Charities (I'm looking at you, Salvation Army) primarily do real charity work, I am SORELY TEMPTED TO PUT EACH DOLLAR IN THE -1 COLUMN when their website has (or had) a Bible quote that homosexuals should be put to death and they lobby one or more governments for homosexuality to be CRIMINAL, and when instead of delivering toy-donations to children they instead DESTROY the donated toys if they are Harry Potter themed or Twilight themed or any other "non-christian" toys they get. They don't even hand those toys over to some other charity to use, they just destroy toys that people tried to donate to poor/sick children. The homosexual-thing is evil but comprehensible, but seriously WTF sort of twisted fuck goes around accepting toy donations for sick children and destroying those toy donations???
-
In a "normal" radio-using device you have an electronic circuit to detect or create an exact sort of signal at a particular frequency range. For example you have one sort of circuit to detect FM tpy signals and a completely different circuit to detect AM radio signals, and a TV has circuitry that transforms exact-TV-format signals into the needed picture and sound signals. The advantage of these specific electronics is that they are cheaper and use less power.
A software defined radio picks up (or transmits) radio waves basically as a graph. A digitized wave form. A software defined radio uses a CPU to examine (or create) the radio wave. This means that simply by loading in the right software you can detect (or create) absolutely any sort of signal at all. You have one circuit that can handle up AM, FM, TV, cellphone signals, wifi signals, or anything. They can also use advanced digital methods to eliminate various kinds of noise.
The downside of software defined radio is that the circuitry needs to be bigger, faster, and more power-hungry to handle fast computation.
Software defined radio has the government worried and paralyzed. The government is used to individually regulating the frequencies and power levels and signal characteristics of each kind of radio-using device. An AM/FM radio specifically does not pick up police or cell phone frequencies, and things like CBs and walkie-talkies and cellphones and baby monitors all have specific power levels and specific frequencies they can broadcast on, and they only broadcast in specific radio formats. And those limits are hard-baked into the devices by their exact circuitry. Software defined radio throws that entire idea out the window. A software defined radio is going to have some inherent power limit based on the exact hardware, and some minimum and maximum frequency range based on the hardware, but generally it can handle a very broad range from low frequency bands to high frequency bands, and they can send/detect absolutely any radio format over that entire range, and they can do it at full power. There's no way to regulate "don't detect police/cell frequencies", and no way to regulate "don't broadcast FM on what is supposed to be an AM band", and there is no way to regulate different power levels on different bands. Once you sell a software defined radio, the end user can load in any software they want.
Software defined radio is revolutionary. It is incredibly flexible. And that flexibility is exactly the "problem" for government regulators.
-
Apparently Slashdot's new tagline is:
Ads for nerds. Stuff you should buy.
-
it is time to treat those who browse extremist websites the same way as those who consume child pornography
Don't equate me with a terrorist just because I like to download some child porn, put some lettuce in the printer, and make myself a BL(cp)T.
-
In a rational and well informed world, there would be absolutely nothing objectionable about the bill. But of course we don't live in a rational or well informed world. The people raising this bill in the legislature, and the teachers who will embrace this bill in the classroom, all have the peculiar notion that Creationism qualifies as "scientific information" and that that Creationist hatchet jobs against evolution qualify as "objective scientific critique".
The intended purpose of the bill is to promote a particular religious doctrine and the primary effect of the bill will be to promote a particular doctrine, which renders the bill unconstitutional regardless of how the text is superficially worded.
The best-case scenario is that every teacher who tries to use this bill to spew garbage is rapidly identified and dragged into court and smacked down by a cluefull judge. The best case scenario is that untold students have their science education actively sabotaged for as short a time period as possible, while countless students have their educations even further crippled by massive education budget failures as cash-strapped school districts get slammed with massive damages and legal fees.
-
A rhetorical question, are you going to argue that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the written word? It says "freedom of speech", and by your argument we're supposed to ignore the author's own elaborations on the meaning of their own words and we're supposed to interpret "speech" and "establishment of religion" in absurdly narrow manners.
Presuming you agree that Freedom of Speech is intended to encompass the written word, and acknowledge that the First Amendment must be interpreted in that manner, then you acknowledge that your argument is ridiculous.
If you're having some disagreement with the interpretation it may be due to awkward nature of the 200+ year-old language style, or perhaps you or one of your teachers had some theocratic agenda that conflicts with interpreting the First Amendment in accordance with the original intent.
You really should read James Madison's writings on the subject. He's the one who introduced it at he Constitutional Convention, he's the one who led the discussion on voting to pass it, and he's the primary author of the dang thing. If there is ANYONE in history qualified to clarify any clear up any confusion on what it means and how to read it properly, it is indisputably Madison.
In case you don't bother, I'll give you the cliffnotes version. Along with explaining how the First Amendment imposes a complete separation between church and state, he lays out a concrete example still applicable today demonstrating that even the current government is in flagrant violation of the Constitution UNDER-enforcing separation of church and state.
-
It's funny how some people keep trying to dump all the blame on Jefferson. As you read the quotes below you should notice that Jefferson's only crime was his greater talent for language.
James Madison variously wrote "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters", "total separation of the church from the State", "separation between religion and & Gov't", "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority", "distinction between Religion and Civil Government".
And if you read the full quotes in context you'll see that every one of those quotes is a "less terse" and less catchy way of saying "Separation of Church and State", and he is stating that Separation of Church and State is the intended and correct interpretation of the First Amendment. And as a reminder, Madison introduced the Establishment clause at the Constitutional Convention, Madison was the primary author of the Establishment clause, Madison led the discussion on voting to pass the Establishment clause. Madison is commonly known as the "Father of the Constitution" and "Father of the Bill of Rights" because he was the primary author of both. If there is ANYONE person in history qualified to elaborate on the accurate and intended meaning of the First Amendment, that person is indisputably James Madison.
It's comical the way some people obsess on Jefferson saying it's all his fault and he doesn't matter. Jefferson's claim to fame here is merely that he's a better wordsmith than Madison or anyone else at the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson merely did a better job putting the idea into a clear and catchy 5 terse words.
The Constitution grantees Freedom of Religion. And the only possible meaning of Freedom of Religion is Separation of Church and State. Our right of Freedom of Religion means we have a protected right against any use of the force and power of government for the purpose of imposing, promoting, suppressing, or prohibiting any particular religious beliefs or practices.
For example students have a protected right to pray in school if they choose to do so. School officials are prohibited from (ab)using their government-granted powers to prohibit or punish prayer. And school officials are equally prohibited from (ab)using their government-granted powers in any sort of attempt to enforce or induce students to pray.
If you ever read any sort of article ranting about some evil court ruling prohibiting students from praying in school, the author of the piece is grossly misinformed at best and full of shit at worse. I have seen many such articles, and each and every time I have typed the name of the case into Google and I've read the actual court ruling, and each and every time the ruling in fact did not prohibit students from praying in school. Each and every time the ruling in fact sanctioned school officials specifically for abusing their governmental powers for the purpose of imposing or promoting their desired religious practices upon students under their control. Sanctioned for violating the students' right of Freedom of Religion, the students' right to be free from some idiot hijacking their governmental powers to forcibly meddle in student's religious lives.
Freedom of Religion = Separation of Church and State = the force of government cannot be used for any purpose of favoring or oppressing particular religious beliefs and practices.
I don't know exactly what agenda has you upset over Separation of Church and State, but if the First Amendment is getting in the way of some desire to hijack the force of government to favor your proffered religious beliefs, or if it's getting in the way of some desire to oppress religions you dislike, too bad. Wannabe Theocrats have the Free Speech right to advocate their beliefs all they like, but the moment you attempt to hijack the Force of Government to infringe upon other people's Freedom of Religion you're damn well going to get smacked down in court. If you don't like it then perhaps we'd both be a lot happier if you moved to some other country that enjoys Theocracy, without that pesky Freedom of Religion stuff getting in the way.
-
Would you claim that Freedom of Speech doesn't protect the written word?
The First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech, and "Speech" was clearly intended in a broad sense to include talking as well as writing, drawing, and any other form of expressive communication.
The First Amendment protects Freedom of Religion, and "Religion" was clearly intended in a broad sense to include entire religions as well as any portion, including any individual religious belief or practice.
The First Amendment denies Congress any power to impose, prohibit, promote, or suppress, any overall religion as well as any particular beliefs or practices of a religious nature.
Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, but it is obviously absurd to permit state and local governments to infringe the Freedom of Speech, to infringe the Freedom of Religion, to engage in warrantless searches and seizures, or to deny people the right to legal defense and trial by jury in criminal cases. This absurdity was remedied by the 14th Amendment, and the Bill of Rights now applies to legislation passed at all levels of government. And I would be astounded and appalled at anyone arguing that state or local governments should have the power to violate the Bill of Rights.
All powers and authority of government officials and employees derive exclusively from powers granted to them by legislation. Government employees are unable to create rules or regulations violating the Bill of Rights because no legislature itself has the power to violate the Bill of Rights, and a legislature cannot create a law delegating to some official a power that the legislature itself does not posses.
No legislature can infringe upon Constitutional Rights, nor can any government official or employee wield governmental powers in any manner with an intent or effect of infringing upon Constitutional Rights.
School Prayer makes a perfect case study:
Students have the protected right of Freedom of Religion. Students have the freedom to pray if and how they want, so long as it is non-disruptive. Lighting a prayer-bonfire at any time would be extremely disruptive and criminal, screaming in the hallways between classes or during lunch would likely be disruptive, and talking above a whisper would potentially be distractive and disruptive during a class lesson. Students can however pray in school as much as they like so long as they aren't being bizarre and somehow disruptive about it.
Teachers and other school officials also have Freedom of Religion, so long as it does not disrupt their work or somehow infringe upon the students. For example they could of course pray during their off periods or pull out a Bible or Koran to quietly read while students take a test, however interrupting class time and holding students captive to recite Bible or Koran verses would obviously be just as disruptive as interrupting the class to recite baseball scores every day. It would also be an abuse of their powers to holding the students as a captive audience and placing the force of government upon their religious practice
Separation of Church and State.
Students and officials are free to pray while in school, however government employees are forbidden to abuse their official powers to either promote or suppress prayer or any other practice by students under their control. A principal cannot punish a student for (appropriate-volume) prayer, nor can he hijack the Public Address system to forcibly impose his preferred prayer upon captive students. A principal or other school official cannot abuse their legislatively-granted-force-of-government powers with the purpose or effect of promoting or suppressing prayer by students.
It's important to note that descriptions of school prayer court battles are often grossly misinformed and grossly misleading. I've read countless articles of someone ranting about some horrible court ruling denying students the freedom to pray in schools, and each and every time I type the name of
Dammit, I want a lunar lander where I am fucking gravity
You Suck!
-
Microsoft has solved the problem and applied a patch to their systems.
The new patch is anticipated to keep the service up and stable for least 4 years.
-
It's not any meaningful restriction.
Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.
You lost mere there. What are you suggesting is unenforced? What are you suggesting is still valid?
If you mean some "unenforced" rule about library cards, no. Public libraries are deliberately open to the public. There is no requirement to have a library card to enter the library and access any and all materials. A library card is only required if you wish to remove books from the building.
If you mean some "unenforced" rule about children in the adult section, no. It is Official Policy of the American Library Association that children have full and equal access to all materials. In fact they state it would be a violation of the Library Bill of Rights if any librarian attempted to deny a minor full access.
For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.
Financial and LEGAL reasons.
I don't know what legal reasons you are suggesting, other than the financial-legal issue of collecting fines. But again, the library is open to the public. Any library card limitations are merely a restriction on removing materials from the library, it is not any restriction on access.
Try reading the American Library Association's policy on Free Access to Libraries for Minors.
In particular note the line "Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children ". In other words don't bother the librarian with any such demands. The library doesn't restrict your child's access, and the library is not going to take responsibility for enforcing any such rules upon your child for you. If you want to limit your child's access then you should tell your child that is your rule. It is your personal right and your personal responsibility to raise your children and enforce your rules for them. You either have to trust your child to obey your rules, or you must supervise your children, and you may punish them if they break your parental rules. The library's mission is to make as much information as possible available to everyone, and the library isn't going to get involved in parenting your child for you.
If you read the Library Bill of Rights, items 1 and 2 are anti-censorship, and items 3 and 4 actually direct libraries to actively oppose attempts at censorship. In practice this means libraries actively fighting individuals, parents, organizations, and politicians, who attempt to restrict library content or who restrict access to library materials. Item 5 says libraries should not restrict access to library materials, specifically including any age-based restrictions.
And here it explicitly states that it is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights to remove content anyone claims is "harmful to minors", and that librarians should actively oppose those who attempt to do so.
American Librarians have a reputation for being mild-mannered, helpful, and neutral to the point of bland boringness... except for their intense opposition to censorship. Opposition with includes actively including and promoting anything that anyone attempts to restrict. Activists rarely get in fights with librarians because it almost always backfires. It almost always results in increased awareness and availability of the very materials they opposed.
-
It's probably just the case of them not considering something as basic as a "library card" an actual restriction.
It's not any meaningful restriction. Libraries are open to the public, even without a library card. Children can just walk in, sit down at a table, and read books from the 'adult' section all day long.
You only need a library card if you want to take books or other materials out on loan. For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.
-
The library's job is to make information available. It's not the librarian's responsibility to keep you (or your children) from seeing any random thing you might object to. It's not the librarian's job to guess that you have so religious or moral objection to blueberries, and it's not the librarian's job to protect you from seeing blueberries, and it's not the library's job to ensure your children or other people's children don't see blueberries just because you object to them. And I just realized some people might read "blueberries" as some sort of euphemism. No, it's just a random silly thing someone could object to.
Most libraries with computer terminals specifically do *not* point them into the room, but you have the reason for it backwards. It is not to protect people from random content that somebody might dislike. No, computers should be located with relatively private screens for the benefit of the library patron using the computer. It is so that people can research medical, sexual, religious, political, or other materials without undue fear of embarrassment or social pressure.
If your library has screens pointing into the middle of the room the perhaps you should raise *that* confidential research consideration with the librarians. I expect you will find librarians infinitely more responsive when the subject is patron confidentiality than when the subject is your desire to "protect" people from content you dislike.
I can tell my kids they aren't allowed to read the hot and heavy romance novels, and I can easily ensure they do not do so. But how easy is it to ensure they do not look at the publicly facing computer monitor in the middle of the library?
You can tell your kids not to look at Witches or anything occult related. And your neighbor can put a giant Witchcraft themed display on their front lawn for Halloween, complete with flashing lights.
And I'll certainly agree it's extremely not easy for you to ensure that they never see it. However it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job, to guess what parts of the world you want to conceal from your children. And it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job to enforce that rule for you. And it is not my job, or your neighbor's job, or a librarian's job to ensure it is "easy" for you to enforce a "no seeing Witches" rule upon your children.
-
Tuzla
Sorry, I had a reflex reaction about repressive fundie American backwater wannabe censors. We actually had one our Vice President ticket 4 years ago. Fortunately she lost.
I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.
While it might raise some eyebrows, the American Library Association has an official policy supporting your right to do so.
Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.
[]
Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users.
Children and young adults unquestionably possess First Amendment rights, including the right to receive information through the library in print, nonprint, or digital format. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them. Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected.
The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries cannot authorize librarians or library governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians. As Libraries: An American Value states, âoeWe affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services.â Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children'sâ"and only their childrenâ(TM)sâ"access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.
Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors.
Most Librarians, at least in the US, tend to have strong views against censorship. And that view includes opposing attempts to "protect" children from information some people consider objectionable. If a parent has an anti-blueberry fetish, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their child not to read books about blueberries. And it is the parent's right and responsibility to enforce that rule regarding their child. The library will not attempt to guess about such parental choices, and librarians will not attempt to enforce such rules upon other people's children.
Do you have any actual knowledge of typical librarian policies in your country? I'd be curious to know whether this was a globally typical attitude of librarians, or whether American librarians were exceptional in their anti-censorship zeal.
-
sets forth reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions
That is content neutral. Of course you can only use the computers during library hours, regardless of what website your viewing.
expressly prohibit any use of library equipment to access material that is obscene, child pornography, or 'harmful to minors' (consistent with any applicable state or local law);
Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually "harmful to minors." The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides. Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally.
Well duh, the library should have a policy stating "don't use these computers to commit a crime". However the library isn't in a position to judge content. And further note that pornography is not obscenity.
-
Which only goes to prove that they are about an agenda rather than facilitating access to information
Their "agenda is exactly to facilitate access to information. Period.
Censorship destroys access to information. Combating censorship is the most important and most fundamental way to facilitate access to information.
otherwise they would not be actively promoting one sort of material over another
They are not choosing preferred books they want to promote. Wannabe censors are selecting the books and obstructing access to them. The library association is merely facilitating access to books where access is impaired.
As for the section you quote, particularly the bolded portion, you seem to contradict that quote. The statement defends a parent's right to restrict what their children access in the library
Try reading the sentence after it:
Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.
It is parent's right and responsibility to raise and supervise their children.
If a parent doesn't want their child drinking sugary sodas, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce that. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.
If a parent doesn't want their child viewing Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or some other religious materials, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.
If a parent doesn't want their child viewing Communist, Libertarian, Republican, or Democratic political materials, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.
If a parent doesn't want their child viewing the uncensored internet, then it is the parent's right and responsibility to tell their children that and to either supervise or enforce it. It is not the Library's job to assist or provide any sort of enforcement.
If you don't want your child drinking soda, tell them to stay away from the vending machine. If you don't want them reading religious materials then tell them to stay out of the religious section. If you don't want them reading politics then tell them to stay out of the political section. If you don't want them viewing the internet then tell them to stay away from the computers.
If you either don't trust them to obey your parenting, or if you wish to select acceptable from some area, then supervise your children.
The Library is not going to hassle some other library patron for having an image of Jesus being crucified up on the screen. If you want to protect your children against religious image then either tell them to stay away from the computers or supervise their computer use.
The library is not going to guess what random stuff you want to censor from your child. The library is not going to guess that you have some anti-blueberry fetish and take on some parenting role protecting your children against images of blueberries.
-