My first impression is that this article may be an over reaction. The quoted terms are abut "services", and I don't think they really involve the browser itself. For example it mentions Google Search and the Safe Search option. I'm a bit disappointed that Safe Search defaults to max filtering mode, but it is very easy to turn it completely off. So far it seems that Google has been doing a pretty good job of things.
If/when Google pulls any nasty stunt I will be in the front lines bitching at them, be thus far I think the article might be an over sensitive reading.
Just because Hitler was a formal member of the Catholic Church, doesn't mean he was a Christian.
Hitler was far more than merely formally Christian. It is all well documented. He was actively Christian, both in his public speeches and in his private speech and private writings. He deeply infused Nazism with Christianity, and declared that all public schools must teach Evangelical Christianity. He was of course an evil megalomaniac on an insane power trip, but he did believe what he was doing was in service of Christianity.
One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. Hitler was a Christian.
bin Laden is not typical of Muslims, and Hitler was not a typical of Christians, but just because you (and I) think he was a BAD Christian, just because you (and I) think his focus and interpretations were bad, just because you (and I) think he did a very BAD job of following Christ's intent, does not change the fact that he was a Christian and that he was follower of Christ as he understood it. Hitler was sincere in his attempt to follow Christianity just as bin Laden is sincere in his attempt to follow Islam.
Hitler and Nazism were deeply Christan and their motivations were in significant part to spread and impose Evangelical Christianity. The official Nazi belt buckle read in "God is with us" (in German of course), and as I said imposing Evangelical Christianity in all of the schools was one of their priorities. A Christian society was one of their priorities.
If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint.
Some people would drop their complains in that case, but not all.
Thus it's not about the censorship, it's about the procedure.
Yes, it is about censorship. The fact that censorship procedures are always bad and always broken merely testifies to the problem of censorship itself.
I say that every single penny being spent trying to censor these images should be revoked, and in fact every single cent being spent to prosecute people over these images should also be revoked, and that every single one of those pennies should be reassigned to finding actual children actual victims, and spent on rescuing actual children actual victims, and spent on prosecuting people actually committing acts against those children.
We do not prosecute someone for mere possession of an image of a crime, such as arson. We do not prosecute someone who collects photos or videos of arson fires. And as warped as it may be, it is not a crime for someone to sit alone in their basement whacking off to images of arson. We put people who commit arson in prison.
Out of a million different crimes, this is the single screwed up case where we break the rule of criminal acts vs images of criminal acts. Arson, bank robbery, murder, fraud, vandalism, even terrorism... not only are images of those crimes legal... anyone would think you insane for suggesting criminalizing such images themselves.
I am tickled pick when I hear some idiot video taped themselves committing arson or anything else. I wish MORE criminals were so colossally stupid. When that video gets spread on the internet or whatnot, that video is the best possible evidence you could hope to ask for to catch and convict that criminal. We don't prosecute other people for possessing or trading that video, we don't even prosecute the original criminal for making that video, we prosecute him for committing the crime of arson.
The fact is that over 90% of the sexual abuse of children is done by a parent(s) or an uncle or priest or other trusted individual in the family environment, countless children in on-going abuse who are not being rescued.
Instead of government censorship to HIDE the problem, instead of all the investigation and prosecution overwhelmingly spent on people not committing those actual criminal acts, I have this insane suggestion that we instead focus all of that on finding and rescuing the actual children and finding and prosecuting the people committing actual acts against actual children.
It is UNFORTUNATE that arsonists don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. It is UNFORTUNATE that burglars don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. It is UNFORTUNATE that child molesters don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. Not only is it the best way to catch and prosecute the criminals, it is often the only way to find and rescue children from the ongoing daily abuse in their own homes.
In another post you said: If I manage to prevent my kid from accidently stumbling upon pictures of another child being raped I would do it in a heartbeat
Sure, you can run any sort of filter you like on your own computer. I also have no problem with you selecting an ISP that offers a "family friendly" filtering service, or better yet an ISP offering a range of categories and levels of filtering. It is entirely appropriate for you to select what books and magazines you do and don't want to buy for yourself and your children, and what TV/cable programs or radio shows you choose to access or individually block for yourself and your children.
Individual selection for oneself and one's children is not censorship, that is selection. A company selecting what content they want to include or exclude from their offerings is not censorship, that is
I hope the fuckers running that site all get ebola and DIE.
Oh, I have no problem with the fact that it's videos of nude children. If nudist families want to get together and run beauty pageant, including teen or pre-teen beauty pageants, that's fine by me. They are perfectly free to be nudists if they like, they certainly don't consider themselves victims, and nobody is any victim of any crime there. And I have no problem with people selling what are essentially ordinary family home videos, even if they happen to be nudist family videos with nude children. And I don't even care if someone buys them and sits alone in his parent's basement whacking off to images of naked kiddies.
So what am I bitching about? Their FAQ:
G3: What is DRM video protection and how will it affect me? To prevent unauthorized distribution of our pageant videos we have implemented Microsoft Digital Rights Management (more info) encoding on all of our *.WMV files. Through initial license acquisition using your Username and Password, the protection makes sure that only our premium members are authorized to view the videos. There are specific software and operating system requirements to play these encrypted files.
S1: What are the system requirements to play your videos? Due to the fact that DRM video encryption is a Microsoft-based product, at this time our videos will only play on Microsoft Windows Operating Systems. The following Windows versions are 100% compatible: Vista, XP, 2000, Me, NT, 98, 95. Within 6-12 months we will provide an encryption alternative that will support Mac OS systems.
S2: What video player must I use to play the videos? Our videos will ONLY play on relatively recent versions of Microsoft Media Player. If your Media Player is out-dated, you might be prompted to update. To experience best quality and performance, we highly recommend upgrading to the latest version.
I was never going to buy order videos in the first place, but even if I wanted to I would need to go look for a torrent. I have a Windows machine, but I do not have Microsoft's Media Player installed, I do not WANT Microsoft's Media Player, and in fact I have explicitly deleted the DRM support that Microsoft shoves into the Operating System itself and into the browser, I have deleted the DRM system files such as DRMCLIEN.DLL and BLACKBOX.DLL and DRMV2CLT.DLL and I created an empty read-only file named "DRM" in the Windows\All_Users folder to BLOCK the operating system from re-creating the fucking DRM folder with that name. I refuse to buy DRM crap, and if I do accidentally wind up with a DRM file and try to play it, I have done everything I can to lock it out from trying to silently activate the DRM system.
blank achievements count as 1; integer score achievements count at face value; exponential score achievements count as the exponent+1, because those begin at 2^0.
That math works for me.
Achievements 23 27 Got a Score:5 Comment (I assume that's anywhere from 128 to 255 score 5 comments for 7+1=8 points) 22 Submitted a Story That Was Posted (I assume that's anywhere from 4 to 7 accepted stories for 2+1=3 points) 25 Days Read in a Row (I assume that's anywhere from 32 to 63 days for 5+1=6 points) The Tagger (Tagged a story, 1 point) The Contradictor (Tagged a story with some !tag, 1 point) Posted a Comment (Posted a comment, 1 point) The Maker (Someone suggested this was starting a thread? 1 point) Comedian (Got a score +5 Funny, 1 point) Had a Comment Modded Up (Had a comment modded up, 1 point)
My whole rant is against the notion that we should even *THINK* of wanting to discourage skepticism about any theory
Ahh, perhaps I (and others) misinterpreted what you were arguing. looking back over your other posts I see that does appear to be the narrow consistent theme in the.
I, and probably at least some of the others "fighting" with you, completely agree with you with the explicit note that the public schools not be used to preform a propaganda or pseudoscience hitjob trying to discredit some unpopular field of science. It appears you completely agree with that note, but perhaps that was unclear in your various posts. The significance of the article, and the primary issue for many here, is the flagrant misinformation and unscientific garbage that some people are trying to push into science classes. I think many people had the impression that you were defending that.
So I think we agree that it's important that all areas of science remain open to questions and challenge, and I think we agree that we should be careful that science teachers not teach misinformation or pseudoscience or anti-science in science class. That it is good and proper to teaching that all science is subject to revision and improvement when new evidence comes in. That it is improper for a science teacher to endeavor to undermine accepted science for personal reasons or political reasons or because it is publicly unpopular, without having significant scientific support for what is being taught.
So that aside, what is your personal impression of evolution? What do you think of it, from outright-fraud, to completely-unsupported, to honest-scientific-total-error, to skeptical to decent-science-but-needs-more-work, or all the way up to evolution-is-on-par-with-chemistry?
I don't see how your post really has anything to do with evolution, nor with my post. Your post seems about as relevant to chemistry as it is to evolution. You seem to somehow be implying that evolution untrue or at least weak&unsupported if science has "no explanation for t=0-". If science has "no explanation for t=0-", does that somehow make chemistry untrue or weak&unsupported?
And my post didn't even mention God at all, which seems to be a significant point of your post. Perhaps it would be helpful if you took a look at my other post where I do talk about God in the last half. I think that post my be much more relevant to what you have in mind. It got modded up to +5 crazy-fast too, posts with Bible quotes don't often zoom to +5 on Slashdot:)
Whether is is chemistry or evolution, yes I absolutely agree with students asking questions and that a good teacher should strive to answer any and all questions that arise, within time and subject matter constraints, and that a really good will turn it into a valuable learning experience when they don't know the answer - leading the class on how to discover that answer.
I am also all in support of sincere questions about science among the general public. In the vast majority of cases the non-scientist asking the question can learn how and why scientists say X, and learn who X is right. And if by some extraordinary chance a non-scientist asks something about (for example) chemistry and identifies a genuine problem, that is a Good Thing. Discovering some flaw in science is a rare and powerful opportunity for major new advancement.
If you have some sincere question/doubt/challenge about evolution, and you actually care about the answer, there is a very high probability I can answer it or find the answer.
However I need to clarify that "sincerely asking questions" is not what this article is about. If someone compiles a list of "questions" and spewing those questions at students with no intent to answer them and no desire to obtain answers to those "questions".... that is not asking a question. A teacher monopolizing a class and spewing fraudulent questions and not answering them.... and deliberately avoiding answers that do exist... designed to leaving students with the (false) impression that no answers exist..... that is not questioning. That is propaganda. If a holocaust denialist runs an entire class with phony "questions" like "If the holocaust happened then where are the millions and millions of dead bodies"... questions designed to "stump" the poor victim children in his class and leave them with the (false) impression that no one has any answer for it... that is propaganda.
The purpose of the anti-evolution curriculum is not to educate and enlighten students. It s designed to undermine understanding, designed to leave students lost and confused and deliberately leave them with no answers. It is designed to leave out the answers that science does have to offer. It is designed to avoid the answers that science does have to offer. The typical strategy is to fire a shotgun blast of lots of little plausible-sounding "problems" at the wall, with the implication that at least one of them must be fatal. And if there is actually someone there to supply the answers... when they take the time to successfully answer one.... and two... and three... and four.... and five of the attacks... that still leaves more "shotgun pellet" attacks hanging in the air that he just plain didn't have time to answer. And the anti-evolutionist just *doesn't care* that five phony questions were just successfully answered.... they just rest on the implication that "heay, one of the other attacks must have been right". And no matter how many "questions" the evolution sides does successfully answer, the anti-evolutionists never run plausible-sounding-but-wrong attacks to keep flinging at the wall because they keep pulling up old arguments that have been shown wrong a thousand times before.
As the judge concluded in the Dover case, after weeks of testimony from both sides, every single "question" being promoted by the anti-evolution side has already been scientifically refuted. Each "question" against evolution on their intended school curriculum is already known to be flawed and/or there is already a known answer available. They want to teach known flawed questions, and they want to deliberately teach valid questions without supplying students with the valid answers we already know exist for those questions.
And again I'll make the bold offer - if you have a sincere doubt or question about evolution.... if you want to understand how or why scientists believe it is true and works.... if you want to know what evidence exists that so strongl
My intent was an inclusive-or that trying to deny either one rapidly drags you down a rabbit hole of denying virtually all of science. The Old Earth evolution-deniers have a bit more wiggle room and manage to get sucked down the hole somewhat more slowly:D
I have to agree with you there. He was wrong to say "evolution already has stood up under all possible scientific scrutiny.
However if you remove the word "possible" then it is correct: "evolution already has stood up under all scientific scrutiny". Thus far every challenge to evolution has fallen down in scientific peer review. Just as chemistry has.
So because it has withstood scientific skepticism for as long as it has, there's no point in teaching children how to apply scientific skepticism to it today?
Evolution is just another field of science, and should be treated no differently.
Are you suggesting CHEMISTRY teachers should stop and teach students all sorts of scientifically refuted garbage attacking chemistry?
indoctrination
I'm opposed to indoctrination.
The purpose of grade school science class is to present the basics of the scientific method, and to present an ACCURATE overview of each major field of science as understood and practiced by professionals of that field.
Rounded to the nearest percentage point, 100% of biologists consider evolution to be absolutely established by the evidence and to be the very foundation of their field. Even if you believe evolution is wrong, that is an undeniable fact. Students should be taught that fact. Students should have an ACCURATE understanding that 100% of professional biologists consider evolution conclusively established by mountains of evidence. Students should have an ACCURATE understanding of how and why 100% of biologists consider evolution foundational to the entire field of biology. Students should have an ACCURATE basic familiarity with the modern scientific field of biology as understood and practiced by professionals in that field, and that means a basic understanding of evolution. Even if you think evolution is wrong, it is still and irrefutable ACCURATE description of modern biologists understood and practiced by biologists.
In biology class, or any of the other sciences, it would be outright fraud to present anything different than that.
And a point that all too often gets neglected in high school science classes, it really would be good if students were presented with some of the evidence establishing each field, some understanding of why the professionals in that field are convinced the science is right. And for evolution that evidence is abundant and conclusive. It's a shame so many people graduate high school without having learned any of the proof that evolution is true. Science shouldn't just be about memorization. Science should be about understanding, and evidence. And evolution can offer both in abundance, if you've got a well informed and quality science teacher.
I was thinking the same about science. If you have to hide the weaknesses of a theory from students, then it does not deserve to be taught.
I'd phrase it a bit differently, but I agree with your point. However that's not what we're talking about here. In the Dover Pennsylvania court case an extremely conservative Bush-appointed judge spent weeks listening to the best experts and best evidence and best arguments from both sides, and he blasted the anti-evolution side. He concluded that all of the arguments on the anti-evolution side had been scientifically refuted. He also blasted them for lying under oath and misrepresenting their intent and their materials. The activists pushing this stuff are literalist Biblical fundamentalists, and their STATED goal was explicitly to use the schools to push their particular interpretation of religion. Their proposed class materials were not science, and had no scientific intent or function. They had no legitimate educational intent or function. The purpose of their materials was solely to press their religious views and to (improperly) undermine science that they disliked on solely theological grounds.
I would love for science education rise to a level where teachers addressed genuine controversies in science and fostered healthy skepticism and proper critique in science. But that's not what this is. This is singling out one arbitrary field of science education to be undermined. This is the Church suppressing and imprisoning Galileo for saying the earth moves.
The purpose of high school science education is to present the general scientific method, and to present an overview of each field of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. In biology, that means evolution. Rounded to the nearest percentage point, 100% of biologists consider evolution to be absolutely confirmed by the evidence and to be the uncontested foundation of their field. Presenting any picture other than that one to students is outright fraudulent.
Evolution should be treated the exact same way as chemistry.
If students have questions you answer them. You do not put together a curriculum filled with incorrect definitions and scientifically refuted arguments and just plain false statements trying to undermine chemistry. As the extremely conservative Bush-appointed judge determined in the Dover Pennsylvania court case, every single argument they want to present in class has been scientifically refuted. As he ruled, the stuff they want to teach is not science.
Evolution should be treated the exact same way as chemistry.
We should not be singling out one arbitrary field of science for different treatment. We most especially should not be singling out one arbitrary field of science to be undermined in school. Just because some people objected to Galileo, just because some people looked to the Bible and said "The earth does not move", just because some people had the hubris to tell God He is forbidden to run His universe that way, is not a valid reason to undermine proper science education.
Proper science education means an ACCURATE presentation of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. And in biology, for 100% of biologists, that is evolution.
Sorry for double-replying, but I missed something:
What the agenda may be of the people who are advocating it is quite irrellevant
Actually it is relevant, in that they are misrepresenting the content they are proposing to bring into class.
In the Dover Pennsylvania case the judge blasted them for lying about their motivation and about what they were trying to do. If you look at the candid statements of the activists pushing this, if you look at the candid statements from the people compiling the materials they want to present in class, they say to each other that what they want to do - what they are actually doing - is to teach their theology in the classroom. They want to teach their particular fundamentalist literalist interpretation of the Bible in the public schools. Of course they think that's a good thing - God is good and of course they think their views and interpretation of the Bible are the One True interpretation of the Bible. Just as many in the Church believed when they denied Galileo. And of course they believe it is good for schools to bring children to (their view of) God.
When they tried explicitly teaching Biblical Creationism in the public schools, the courts ruled that the government cannot single out a favored religion to teach in the public schools. And since then they have not changed their goal. They have been steadily trying to place a Halloween mask on the materials they want to teach. They literally took the old Biblical Creationist textbook and started clipping out words like "God" and replacing it with an "unnamed" designer. They did a search-and-replace on the text removing the word "Creationist" and replacing it with "design proponent". In fact one version of this textbook leaked out with the odd phrase "Cdesign proponentist". The botched the job of changing the word "Creationist" into "design proponent". It's the exact same textbook, it's the exact same Biblical Theology textbook, and by HIDING the word "God" they want to pretend that they aren't pushing religion. They are trying to put on a Halloween mask of science, and by relabeling the materials as "science" they hope to slip it past the courts and into the science classroom.
So yes, the agenda of these people is relevant. It's relevant because they are lying to you. They are saying they want to improve science education, they are saying they want to present scientific information to the students, they are saying they they want to students to have a better understanding of science, they are saying they merely want to present students with fair valid and educational scientific critiques of evolution, but it is just not true. After stripping out the overt references to God and the overt theology, basically all that's left is their theme "gee that looks complex and I don't understand it, therefore God must designed it" (except God becomes an unnamed designer), and the exact same unscientific and flawed bashing of evolution that filled in their Biblical Creationism textbook. Their sole purpose and their sole intent is to undermine evolution in the presumption that students will then need to turn to their Biblical Literalism theology. But those materials they prepared in the first place, the materials they are pushing now, they were never science materials and they still are not science materials. They were never valid criticisms and they still are not valid criticisms. They were never designed for proper educational purposes, and they still are not designed for proper educational purposes.
I would LOVE it if out science education rose to a level where teachers were able to deal with genuine scientific controversies and genuine critical thinking skills to better understand and evaluate science. But that's not what we are facing here. If you defend these people, that is not what you are supporting here. These people solely want to undermine a field of science they don't like. The materials they want to present are not science. They are not tools for critical thinking. They are not educational ma
I'm sorry, but NO. You do NOT teach refuted holocaust denialism to children as if it were legitimate.
Teaching children things we KNOW are wrong, teaching them holocaust-skeptic arguments we know are wrong, teaching them holocaust "weaknesses" and and "holes" and counter arguments as if they were valid is NOT a proper way to teach critical thinking skills. Holocaust-denialism exploits, feeds on, and entrenches weaknesses in critical thinking.
All of the anti-evolution criticisms have been examined under expert scientific peer review, and they have all been found flawed and just plain wrong and completely contrary to the evidence. It has all been scientifically refuted.
You do not teach refuted arguments in a class unless you are explicitly teaching it as an example of something that has been refuted, and you also present the explanation of how and why it has been refuted.
The people pushing this anti-evolution stuff either don't know or don't care that every single point has been scientifically refuted, and they want to present it to students as if it were real and true and scientifically legitimate. They want to teach errors and untruths to children, and the children do not have the factual knowledge and scientific expertise to identify the errors and refute the false claims.
Just as with a holocaust denialist history education, it is designed to lead children astray, to mislead them about the facts, and it will only impair their thinking.
People will figure it out for themselves if they are given the necessary tools to do so
I'm all for teaching kids the tools for critical thinking.
However a holocaust denialism education and an evolution denialism education are *not* helpful toolkits. They are poison, they are corrosive, they are anti-tools. Their only valid purpose is as a case study in the dangers of misinformation and logical errors and invalid arguments and bad thinking.
Most education is (unfortunately) taught as memorization, and (unfortunately) science class is often taught as a list of facts to memorize. With all of the lies and misinformation out there about evolution, it is particularly critical that students be taught the evidence and WHY evolution is correct. That's the real problem, that so many people are unaware of just how absolute the evidence is proving evolution. For example while most of the fossil evidence is "gappy", there is a significant chunk of the tree of life where the fossil evidence is absolutely continuous and complete. Absolute irrefutable proof. DNA analysis also proves the evolutionary family tree of common descent with the same courtroom level "Proof Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt" that courtroom DNA analysis proves the family tree relationships between people. And then there's the fact that evolution is an applied science, used in hundreds and hundreds of businesses solving problems and creating new valuable complex information. People who state that there are no fossil intermediate forms are just plain wrong, they are stating just plain falsehoods. People who argue that evolution cannot create information, cannot create complexity, cannot create so-called "Irreducible Complexity", they are just plain wrong, they are stating just plain falsehoods. At best they are innocently ignorantly asserting untruths, at worst they are being outright deluded or outright dishonest.
My position is that we should be teaching the evidence, the proof, in class. In evolution, of all fields of science, it is most critical that student see and understand the evidence and proof backing up evolution. In chemistry and astronomy and other fields they are not going to come under attack from misinformation and aggressive misleading arguments, they can be "told" about elements and the planets and no one is going to badger them with fallacious arguments that atoms don't exist. But with evolution students need the facts to back up the science. Students need to understand WHY 99.9% of biologists consider evolution right, students need to
If it is wrong or bad science or whatever it needs to be discussed and and an argument needs to be made as to why it is wrong.
Yes, and that has already been done.
The proper battleground for that is the scientific peer review process.
All of the anti-evolution arguments have been scientifically refuted, and the only proper educational use of scientifically refuted claims in a science class is if each refuted claim is accompanied with an explanation of how and why is has been scientifically refuted. The people pushing this "weaknesses of evolution" stuff either don't know or don't care that their materials have been scientifically refuted, and their agenda is to push this stuff on uninformed vulnerable children as if it were valid.
You don't teach anti-science in a science class, unless you are explicitly teaching it as an example of flawed/phony anti-science. And that is most certainly not the intent of the anti-evolution crusaders here.
Slashdot Mirror
Google defaults to "Moderate", which is in between "No filtering" and "Strict" filtering.
My bad. You're right.
The "moderate" option filter images only. The "strict" option filters images and also filters pages for text as well.
-
My first impression is that this article may be an over reaction. The quoted terms are abut "services", and I don't think they really involve the browser itself. For example it mentions Google Search and the Safe Search option. I'm a bit disappointed that Safe Search defaults to max filtering mode, but it is very easy to turn it completely off. So far it seems that Google has been doing a pretty good job of things.
If/when Google pulls any nasty stunt I will be in the front lines bitching at them, be thus far I think the article might be an over sensitive reading.
-
Just because Hitler was a formal member of the Catholic Church, doesn't mean he was a Christian.
Hitler was far more than merely formally Christian. It is all well documented. He was actively Christian, both in his public speeches and in his private speech and private writings. He deeply infused Nazism with Christianity, and declared that all public schools must teach Evangelical Christianity. He was of course an evil megalomaniac on an insane power trip, but he did believe what he was doing was in service of Christianity.
One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
Osama bin Laden is a Muslim.
Hitler was a Christian.
bin Laden is not typical of Muslims, and Hitler was not a typical of Christians, but just because you (and I) think he was a BAD Christian, just because you (and I) think his focus and interpretations were bad, just because you (and I) think he did a very BAD job of following Christ's intent, does not change the fact that he was a Christian and that he was follower of Christ as he understood it. Hitler was sincere in his attempt to follow Christianity just as bin Laden is sincere in his attempt to follow Islam.
Hitler and Nazism were deeply Christan and their motivations were in significant part to spread and impose Evangelical Christianity. The official Nazi belt buckle read in "God is with us" (in German of course), and as I said imposing Evangelical Christianity in all of the schools was one of their priorities. A Christian society was one of their priorities.
-
Christianity has morals?
Yep... and that is go ahead and do any and sorts of evil shit and either confess to your priest or pray to God, and you get eternal reward for it.
-
If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint.
Some people would drop their complains in that case, but not all.
Thus it's not about the censorship, it's about the procedure.
Yes, it is about censorship. The fact that censorship procedures are always bad and always broken merely testifies to the problem of censorship itself.
I say that every single penny being spent trying to censor these images should be revoked, and in fact every single cent being spent to prosecute people over these images should also be revoked, and that every single one of those pennies should be reassigned to finding actual children actual victims, and spent on rescuing actual children actual victims, and spent on prosecuting people actually committing acts against those children.
We do not prosecute someone for mere possession of an image of a crime, such as arson. We do not prosecute someone who collects photos or videos of arson fires. And as warped as it may be, it is not a crime for someone to sit alone in their basement whacking off to images of arson. We put people who commit arson in prison.
Out of a million different crimes, this is the single screwed up case where we break the rule of criminal acts vs images of criminal acts. Arson, bank robbery, murder, fraud, vandalism, even terrorism... not only are images of those crimes legal... anyone would think you insane for suggesting criminalizing such images themselves.
I am tickled pick when I hear some idiot video taped themselves committing arson or anything else. I wish MORE criminals were so colossally stupid. When that video gets spread on the internet or whatnot, that video is the best possible evidence you could hope to ask for to catch and convict that criminal. We don't prosecute other people for possessing or trading that video, we don't even prosecute the original criminal for making that video, we prosecute him for committing the crime of arson.
The fact is that over 90% of the sexual abuse of children is done by a parent(s) or an uncle or priest or other trusted individual in the family environment, countless children in on-going abuse who are not being rescued.
Instead of government censorship to HIDE the problem, instead of all the investigation and prosecution overwhelmingly spent on people not committing those actual criminal acts, I have this insane suggestion that we instead focus all of that on finding and rescuing the actual children and finding and prosecuting the people committing actual acts against actual children.
It is UNFORTUNATE that arsonists don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. It is UNFORTUNATE that burglars don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. It is UNFORTUNATE that child molesters don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. Not only is it the best way to catch and prosecute the criminals, it is often the only way to find and rescue children from the ongoing daily abuse in their own homes.
In another post you said:
If I manage to prevent my kid from accidently stumbling upon pictures of another child being raped I would do it in a heartbeat
Sure, you can run any sort of filter you like on your own computer. I also have no problem with you selecting an ISP that offers a "family friendly" filtering service, or better yet an ISP offering a range of categories and levels of filtering. It is entirely appropriate for you to select what books and magazines you do and don't want to buy for yourself and your children, and what TV/cable programs or radio shows you choose to access or individually block for yourself and your children.
Individual selection for oneself and one's children is not censorship, that is selection. A company selecting what content they want to include or exclude from their offerings is not censorship, that is
Informative :)
-
There are whole sites full of such pictures.
I hope the fuckers running that site all get ebola and DIE.
Oh, I have no problem with the fact that it's videos of nude children. If nudist families want to get together and run beauty pageant, including teen or pre-teen beauty pageants, that's fine by me. They are perfectly free to be nudists if they like, they certainly don't consider themselves victims, and nobody is any victim of any crime there. And I have no problem with people selling what are essentially ordinary family home videos, even if they happen to be nudist family videos with nude children. And I don't even care if someone buys them and sits alone in his parent's basement whacking off to images of naked kiddies.
So what am I bitching about? Their FAQ:
G3: What is DRM video protection and how will it affect me?
To prevent unauthorized distribution of our pageant videos we have implemented Microsoft Digital Rights Management (more info) encoding on all of our *.WMV files. Through initial license acquisition using your Username and Password, the protection makes sure that only our premium members are authorized to view the videos. There are specific software and operating system requirements to play these encrypted files.
S1: What are the system requirements to play your videos?
Due to the fact that DRM video encryption is a Microsoft-based product, at this time our videos will only play on Microsoft Windows Operating Systems. The following Windows versions are 100% compatible: Vista, XP, 2000, Me, NT, 98, 95. Within 6-12 months we will provide an encryption alternative that will support Mac OS systems.
S2: What video player must I use to play the videos?
Our videos will ONLY play on relatively recent versions of Microsoft Media Player. If your Media Player is out-dated, you might be prompted to update. To experience best quality and performance, we highly recommend upgrading to the latest version.
I was never going to buy order videos in the first place, but even if I wanted to I would need to go look for a torrent. I have a Windows machine, but I do not have Microsoft's Media Player installed, I do not WANT Microsoft's Media Player, and in fact I have explicitly deleted the DRM support that Microsoft shoves into the Operating System itself and into the browser, I have deleted the DRM system files such as DRMCLIEN.DLL and BLACKBOX.DLL and DRMV2CLT.DLL and I created an empty read-only file named "DRM" in the Windows\All_Users folder to BLOCK the operating system from re-creating the fucking DRM folder with that name. I refuse to buy DRM crap, and if I do accidentally wind up with a DRM file and try to play it, I have done everything I can to lock it out from trying to silently activate the DRM system.
-
. They want to be able to release this stuff, but control it at the same time.
Cake, have, eat too.
-
One day, I'll have a one-digit user ID. You all just wait.
-
Be informative and you can be a librarian!
P.S. - Mods, this one is troll or you'll break the chain.
No wait! Don't mod me troll!
NoooOOOoooOOoooo! Don't mod me troll! Noooooo! AAAAaaaaiiiiieeeeeeee! NOOOOooooooooooo.........
-
* Has been moderated (-1 troll) more than 5 times
* " " Flamebait " " etc
Instead of +2log those should be -2exponential.
-
blank achievements count as 1; integer score achievements count at face value; exponential score achievements count as the exponent+1, because those begin at 2^0.
That math works for me.
Achievements 23
27 Got a Score:5 Comment (I assume that's anywhere from 128 to 255 score 5 comments for 7+1=8 points)
22 Submitted a Story That Was Posted (I assume that's anywhere from 4 to 7 accepted stories for 2+1=3 points)
25 Days Read in a Row (I assume that's anywhere from 32 to 63 days for 5+1=6 points)
The Tagger (Tagged a story, 1 point)
The Contradictor (Tagged a story with some !tag, 1 point)
Posted a Comment (Posted a comment, 1 point)
The Maker (Someone suggested this was starting a thread? 1 point)
Comedian (Got a score +5 Funny, 1 point)
Had a Comment Modded Up (Had a comment modded up, 1 point)
8+3+6+1+1+1+1+1+1=23
-
It's in my scroll bar?
-
My whole rant is against the notion that we should even *THINK* of wanting to discourage skepticism about any theory
Ahh, perhaps I (and others) misinterpreted what you were arguing.
looking back over your other posts I see that does appear to be the narrow consistent theme in the.
I, and probably at least some of the others "fighting" with you, completely agree with you with the explicit note that the public schools not be used to preform a propaganda or pseudoscience hitjob trying to discredit some unpopular field of science. It appears you completely agree with that note, but perhaps that was unclear in your various posts. The significance of the article, and the primary issue for many here, is the flagrant misinformation and unscientific garbage that some people are trying to push into science classes. I think many people had the impression that you were defending that.
So I think we agree that it's important that all areas of science remain open to questions and challenge, and I think we agree that we should be careful that science teachers not teach misinformation or pseudoscience or anti-science in science class. That it is good and proper to teaching that all science is subject to revision and improvement when new evidence comes in. That it is improper for a science teacher to endeavor to undermine accepted science for personal reasons or political reasons or because it is publicly unpopular, without having significant scientific support for what is being taught.
So that aside, what is your personal impression of evolution? What do you think of it, from outright-fraud, to completely-unsupported, to honest-scientific-total-error, to skeptical to decent-science-but-needs-more-work, or all the way up to evolution-is-on-par-with-chemistry?
-
I don't see how your post really has anything to do with evolution, nor with my post. Your post seems about as relevant to chemistry as it is to evolution. You seem to somehow be implying that evolution untrue or at least weak&unsupported if science has "no explanation for t=0-". If science has "no explanation for t=0-", does that somehow make chemistry untrue or weak&unsupported?
And my post didn't even mention God at all, which seems to be a significant point of your post. Perhaps it would be helpful if you took a look at my other post where I do talk about God in the last half. I think that post my be much more relevant to what you have in mind. It got modded up to +5 crazy-fast too, posts with Bible quotes don't often zoom to +5 on Slashdot :)
-
I agree with that post, with one clarification.
Whether is is chemistry or evolution, yes I absolutely agree with students asking questions and that a good teacher should strive to answer any and all questions that arise, within time and subject matter constraints, and that a really good will turn it into a valuable learning experience when they don't know the answer - leading the class on how to discover that answer.
I am also all in support of sincere questions about science among the general public. In the vast majority of cases the non-scientist asking the question can learn how and why scientists say X, and learn who X is right. And if by some extraordinary chance a non-scientist asks something about (for example) chemistry and identifies a genuine problem, that is a Good Thing. Discovering some flaw in science is a rare and powerful opportunity for major new advancement.
If you have some sincere question/doubt/challenge about evolution, and you actually care about the answer, there is a very high probability I can answer it or find the answer.
However I need to clarify that "sincerely asking questions" is not what this article is about. If someone compiles a list of "questions" and spewing those questions at students with no intent to answer them and no desire to obtain answers to those "questions".... that is not asking a question. A teacher monopolizing a class and spewing fraudulent questions and not answering them.... and deliberately avoiding answers that do exist... designed to leaving students with the (false) impression that no answers exist..... that is not questioning. That is propaganda. If a holocaust denialist runs an entire class with phony "questions" like "If the holocaust happened then where are the millions and millions of dead bodies"... questions designed to "stump" the poor victim children in his class and leave them with the (false) impression that no one has any answer for it... that is propaganda.
The purpose of the anti-evolution curriculum is not to educate and enlighten students. It s designed to undermine understanding, designed to leave students lost and confused and deliberately leave them with no answers. It is designed to leave out the answers that science does have to offer. It is designed to avoid the answers that science does have to offer. The typical strategy is to fire a shotgun blast of lots of little plausible-sounding "problems" at the wall, with the implication that at least one of them must be fatal. And if there is actually someone there to supply the answers... when they take the time to successfully answer one.... and two... and three... and four.... and five of the attacks... that still leaves more "shotgun pellet" attacks hanging in the air that he just plain didn't have time to answer. And the anti-evolutionist just *doesn't care* that five phony questions were just successfully answered.... they just rest on the implication that "heay, one of the other attacks must have been right". And no matter how many "questions" the evolution sides does successfully answer, the anti-evolutionists never run plausible-sounding-but-wrong attacks to keep flinging at the wall because they keep pulling up old arguments that have been shown wrong a thousand times before.
As the judge concluded in the Dover case, after weeks of testimony from both sides, every single "question" being promoted by the anti-evolution side has already been scientifically refuted. Each "question" against evolution on their intended school curriculum is already known to be flawed and/or there is already a known answer available. They want to teach known flawed questions, and they want to deliberately teach valid questions without supplying students with the valid answers we already know exist for those questions.
And again I'll make the bold offer - if you have a sincere doubt or question about evolution.... if you want to understand how or why scientists believe it is true and works.... if you want to know what evidence exists that so strongl
My intent was an inclusive-or that trying to deny either one rapidly drags you down a rabbit hole of denying virtually all of science. The Old Earth evolution-deniers have a bit more wiggle room and manage to get sucked down the hole somewhat more slowly :D
-
People are irrational, emotional, slathering rat-beasts. And they're stupid.
Marry me?
-
I have to agree with you there. He was wrong to say "evolution already has stood up under all possible scientific scrutiny.
However if you remove the word "possible" then it is correct: "evolution already has stood up under all scientific scrutiny". Thus far every challenge to evolution has fallen down in scientific peer review. Just as chemistry has.
-
So because it has withstood scientific skepticism for as long as it has, there's no point in teaching children how to apply scientific skepticism to it today?
Evolution is just another field of science, and should be treated no differently.
Are you suggesting CHEMISTRY teachers should stop and teach students all sorts of scientifically refuted garbage attacking chemistry?
indoctrination
I'm opposed to indoctrination.
The purpose of grade school science class is to present the basics of the scientific method, and to present an ACCURATE overview of each major field of science as understood and practiced by professionals of that field.
Rounded to the nearest percentage point, 100% of biologists consider evolution to be absolutely established by the evidence and to be the very foundation of their field. Even if you believe evolution is wrong, that is an undeniable fact. Students should be taught that fact. Students should have an ACCURATE understanding that 100% of professional biologists consider evolution conclusively established by mountains of evidence. Students should have an ACCURATE understanding of how and why 100% of biologists consider evolution foundational to the entire field of biology. Students should have an ACCURATE basic familiarity with the modern scientific field of biology as understood and practiced by professionals in that field, and that means a basic understanding of evolution. Even if you think evolution is wrong, it is still and irrefutable ACCURATE description of modern biologists understood and practiced by biologists.
In biology class, or any of the other sciences, it would be outright fraud to present anything different than that.
And a point that all too often gets neglected in high school science classes, it really would be good if students were presented with some of the evidence establishing each field, some understanding of why the professionals in that field are convinced the science is right. And for evolution that evidence is abundant and conclusive. It's a shame so many people graduate high school without having learned any of the proof that evolution is true. Science shouldn't just be about memorization. Science should be about understanding, and evidence. And evolution can offer both in abundance, if you've got a well informed and quality science teacher.
-
I was thinking the same about science. If you have to hide the weaknesses of a theory from students, then it does not deserve to be taught.
I'd phrase it a bit differently, but I agree with your point. However that's not what we're talking about here. In the Dover Pennsylvania court case an extremely conservative Bush-appointed judge spent weeks listening to the best experts and best evidence and best arguments from both sides, and he blasted the anti-evolution side. He concluded that all of the arguments on the anti-evolution side had been scientifically refuted. He also blasted them for lying under oath and misrepresenting their intent and their materials. The activists pushing this stuff are literalist Biblical fundamentalists, and their STATED goal was explicitly to use the schools to push their particular interpretation of religion. Their proposed class materials were not science, and had no scientific intent or function. They had no legitimate educational intent or function. The purpose of their materials was solely to press their religious views and to (improperly) undermine science that they disliked on solely theological grounds.
I would love for science education rise to a level where teachers addressed genuine controversies in science and fostered healthy skepticism and proper critique in science. But that's not what this is. This is singling out one arbitrary field of science education to be undermined. This is the Church suppressing and imprisoning Galileo for saying the earth moves.
-
The purpose of high school science education is to present the general scientific method, and to present an overview of each field of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. In biology, that means evolution. Rounded to the nearest percentage point, 100% of biologists consider evolution to be absolutely confirmed by the evidence and to be the uncontested foundation of their field. Presenting any picture other than that one to students is outright fraudulent.
Evolution should be treated the exact same way as chemistry.
If students have questions you answer them. You do not put together a curriculum filled with incorrect definitions and scientifically refuted arguments and just plain false statements trying to undermine chemistry. As the extremely conservative Bush-appointed judge determined in the Dover Pennsylvania court case, every single argument they want to present in class has been scientifically refuted. As he ruled, the stuff they want to teach is not science.
Evolution should be treated the exact same way as chemistry.
We should not be singling out one arbitrary field of science for different treatment. We most especially should not be singling out one arbitrary field of science to be undermined in school. Just because some people objected to Galileo, just because some people looked to the Bible and said "The earth does not move", just because some people had the hubris to tell God He is forbidden to run His universe that way, is not a valid reason to undermine proper science education.
Proper science education means an ACCURATE presentation of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. And in biology, for 100% of biologists, that is evolution.
-
Sorry for double-replying, but I missed something:
What the agenda may be of the people who are advocating it is quite irrellevant
Actually it is relevant, in that they are misrepresenting the content they are proposing to bring into class.
In the Dover Pennsylvania case the judge blasted them for lying about their motivation and about what they were trying to do. If you look at the candid statements of the activists pushing this, if you look at the candid statements from the people compiling the materials they want to present in class, they say to each other that what they want to do - what they are actually doing - is to teach their theology in the classroom. They want to teach their particular fundamentalist literalist interpretation of the Bible in the public schools. Of course they think that's a good thing - God is good and of course they think their views and interpretation of the Bible are the One True interpretation of the Bible. Just as many in the Church believed when they denied Galileo. And of course they believe it is good for schools to bring children to (their view of) God.
When they tried explicitly teaching Biblical Creationism in the public schools, the courts ruled that the government cannot single out a favored religion to teach in the public schools. And since then they have not changed their goal. They have been steadily trying to place a Halloween mask on the materials they want to teach. They literally took the old Biblical Creationist textbook and started clipping out words like "God" and replacing it with an "unnamed" designer. They did a search-and-replace on the text removing the word "Creationist" and replacing it with "design proponent". In fact one version of this textbook leaked out with the odd phrase "Cdesign proponentist". The botched the job of changing the word "Creationist" into "design proponent". It's the exact same textbook, it's the exact same Biblical Theology textbook, and by HIDING the word "God" they want to pretend that they aren't pushing religion. They are trying to put on a Halloween mask of science, and by relabeling the materials as "science" they hope to slip it past the courts and into the science classroom.
So yes, the agenda of these people is relevant. It's relevant because they are lying to you. They are saying they want to improve science education, they are saying they want to present scientific information to the students, they are saying they they want to students to have a better understanding of science, they are saying they merely want to present students with fair valid and educational scientific critiques of evolution, but it is just not true. After stripping out the overt references to God and the overt theology, basically all that's left is their theme "gee that looks complex and I don't understand it, therefore God must designed it" (except God becomes an unnamed designer), and the exact same unscientific and flawed bashing of evolution that filled in their Biblical Creationism textbook. Their sole purpose and their sole intent is to undermine evolution in the presumption that students will then need to turn to their Biblical Literalism theology. But those materials they prepared in the first place, the materials they are pushing now, they were never science materials and they still are not science materials. They were never valid criticisms and they still are not valid criticisms. They were never designed for proper educational purposes, and they still are not designed for proper educational purposes.
I would LOVE it if out science education rose to a level where teachers were able to deal with genuine scientific controversies and genuine critical thinking skills to better understand and evaluate science. But that's not what we are facing here. If you defend these people, that is not what you are supporting here. These people solely want to undermine a field of science they don't like. The materials they want to present are not science. They are not tools for critical thinking. They are not educational ma
I'm sorry, but NO. You do NOT teach refuted holocaust denialism to children as if it were legitimate.
Teaching children things we KNOW are wrong, teaching them holocaust-skeptic arguments we know are wrong, teaching them holocaust "weaknesses" and and "holes" and counter arguments as if they were valid is NOT a proper way to teach critical thinking skills. Holocaust-denialism exploits, feeds on, and entrenches weaknesses in critical thinking.
All of the anti-evolution criticisms have been examined under expert scientific peer review, and they have all been found flawed and just plain wrong and completely contrary to the evidence. It has all been scientifically refuted.
You do not teach refuted arguments in a class unless you are explicitly teaching it as an example of something that has been refuted, and you also present the explanation of how and why it has been refuted.
The people pushing this anti-evolution stuff either don't know or don't care that every single point has been scientifically refuted, and they want to present it to students as if it were real and true and scientifically legitimate. They want to teach errors and untruths to children, and the children do not have the factual knowledge and scientific expertise to identify the errors and refute the false claims.
Just as with a holocaust denialist history education, it is designed to lead children astray, to mislead them about the facts, and it will only impair their thinking.
People will figure it out for themselves if they are given the necessary tools to do so
I'm all for teaching kids the tools for critical thinking.
However a holocaust denialism education and an evolution denialism education are *not* helpful toolkits. They are poison, they are corrosive, they are anti-tools. Their only valid purpose is as a case study in the dangers of misinformation and logical errors and invalid arguments and bad thinking.
Most education is (unfortunately) taught as memorization, and (unfortunately) science class is often taught as a list of facts to memorize. With all of the lies and misinformation out there about evolution, it is particularly critical that students be taught the evidence and WHY evolution is correct. That's the real problem, that so many people are unaware of just how absolute the evidence is proving evolution. For example while most of the fossil evidence is "gappy", there is a significant chunk of the tree of life where the fossil evidence is absolutely continuous and complete. Absolute irrefutable proof. DNA analysis also proves the evolutionary family tree of common descent with the same courtroom level "Proof Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt" that courtroom DNA analysis proves the family tree relationships between people. And then there's the fact that evolution is an applied science, used in hundreds and hundreds of businesses solving problems and creating new valuable complex information. People who state that there are no fossil intermediate forms are just plain wrong, they are stating just plain falsehoods. People who argue that evolution cannot create information, cannot create complexity, cannot create so-called "Irreducible Complexity", they are just plain wrong, they are stating just plain falsehoods. At best they are innocently ignorantly asserting untruths, at worst they are being outright deluded or outright dishonest.
My position is that we should be teaching the evidence, the proof, in class.
In evolution, of all fields of science, it is most critical that student see and understand the evidence and proof backing up evolution. In chemistry and astronomy and other fields they are not going to come under attack from misinformation and aggressive misleading arguments, they can be "told" about elements and the planets and no one is going to badger them with fallacious arguments that atoms don't exist. But with evolution students need the facts to back up the science. Students need to understand WHY 99.9% of biologists consider evolution right, students need to
If it is wrong or bad science or whatever it needs to be discussed and and an argument needs to be made as to why it is wrong.
Yes, and that has already been done.
The proper battleground for that is the scientific peer review process.
All of the anti-evolution arguments have been scientifically refuted, and the only proper educational use of scientifically refuted claims in a science class is if each refuted claim is accompanied with an explanation of how and why is has been scientifically refuted. The people pushing this "weaknesses of evolution" stuff either don't know or don't care that their materials have been scientifically refuted, and their agenda is to push this stuff on uninformed vulnerable children as if it were valid.
You don't teach anti-science in a science class, unless you are explicitly teaching it as an example of flawed/phony anti-science. And that is most certainly not the intent of the anti-evolution crusaders here.
-