No. We can't. That was proven a long time ago. Humanity is and will always be in conflict with itself.
The only way to bring peace to the world is to crush out every last spark of individuality and source of friction, and to do that you would have to use force, thus defeating your own goals.
Not saying war is a good thing, but conflict is inevitable. And there will always be those who are hyper enough to use force first.
Hot water (and/or soap) might do it.. I don't bother taking off the stickers... I use em to replace the crappy cases that EBGames puts their used Xbox games in, so it's not covering up a game title or anything.
And the tin boxes make nice shooting targets, they don't shatter like the CDs.
And that's where we'll have to agree to disagree - because I place zero faith in any global regulatory body to 'do the right thing' in this regard. Especially one that arrogates legal powers that supercede every country's laws. And with the ability to levy fines and legal action against individual citizens/subjects!? No thanks.
What one society may find offensive/explicit/whatever, another may not. There are dozens of examples of that already. And I'm not willing to let someone else be the judge and director of my morality any more than I'm willing to define yours for you.
Until we achieve a global system of government, a global *forced* (voluntary participation is an entirely different discussion).xxx TLD just isn't an option. And even then, it would be a reactive system as new sites came online every day. Plus, porn would still be had by those that knew how to get it. The WWW isn't the only way to distribute files. Think back to the early days of warezing and the 0-day sites... back before places like gamecopyworld.com existed.
And lets not forget peer-to-peer systems.. Pornster, anyone?
"So the fact is that the internet poses a serious challenge to parenting."
No more than any other peer pressure or addiction situation. And I'd say it's a lot easier than dealing with that other stuff. Pot is cheap, booze is plentiful, and it can be gotten when the parents aren't looking and can't control or direct the child's impulses.
An Internet (and/or porn) addiction, on the other hand, almost invariably takes place *in the home*, because grade schoolers tend not to have independent sources of income to buy big ticket items like computers or have credit to sign up for Internet access on their own. It's certainly not something you can 'sneak a hit' of in between classes.
And since it's in the home, it's very easy to intervene - turn off the computer, unplug the modem, disconnect the service if necessary. If only intervening between a child and drugs was as simple as cutting power to a box full of electronics...
Most people think how amazingly well the.edu TLD system works when they talk about.xxx. But it's not as clean an issue as.edu.
There's a difference between a TLD like.edu, where only legit educational institutions are allowed to have a marker in it, and.xxx, where you'd have to *force* someone to register that kind of site. It's never easy to force people to do anything. You'd have to fight legal battles in every single connected country in the world to get that enforced. What happens if Denmark doesn't play along? Or any other country?
And that still doesn't answer the main question: who collects the fines? Who does the enforcing? Who says what is and what isn't 'sexually explicit'?
Simply saying 'create.xxx' glosses over the assignment of a staggeringly large amount of regulatory power, both financial and legal. Who gets it?
And maybe little Janet needs to be more careful about giving out her email address to anyone and everyone who asks for it - that's how spam is gotten. My accounts get little to no spam, and zero porn. Mainly because I don't type them into every box that asks for it. Maybe little Janet's parents could teach her that, if they weren't so expectant that 'the Internet' do it all for them.
Ever hear of SpamAssassin? Or any of a dozen other spam filters? There are MTA-level tools that can filter that crap out at the tap. It's time people got to be more discriminating about who they take email service from. Go with a company that provides spam filtering and you'll be a lot less aggravated.
No porn email spam (which my 11 year old sister recieves via hotmail). - This can and should be covered under the broader umbrella of 'unsolicited bulk email'. The fact that it has titties in it doesn't make it any worse. Well, maybe it does, but if spam goes away, porn spam goes away. That fight is already being fought, no need to do it twice.
All porn must be paid access. - Why? That's about as arbitrary as it gets.
Entrance screens rated G. - Well, ok, there's precedent for that. But see below.
Fines for sites that appear in non-porn related web searches - Who pays the fine? The website owner? What if someone else submitted his site without his consent or knowledge? The search engine? Well, possibly, but that opens up a whole new can of worms - whereby the search engines would then have to start monitoring for content. And nice as Google is, I don't want it to have the power to tell me I can't go somewhere cos it's got titties there.
And the bigger question is - who regulates all this? Who gets to decide what passes and what doesn't? That's a lot of regulatory power. And how does it get enforced?
Also, I have to take issue at your use of 'gestapo'.. Strict (or even moderate) parenting hardly equates with that. Preventing a child from doing anything and everything it wants to do is hardly 'gestapo'. Making it avoid distractions while trying to learn things is not being 'gestapo'. Setting and enforcing rules is not being 'gestapo'.
And I also challenge your assertion that strict parents produce more deviants than uncaring ones. I submit that those kids had parents just as uncaring as any - the only difference is those parents let a set of rules babysit for them instead of a TV or computer.
You said it yourself, a child cannot moderate - it requires guidance and *some* semblance of authority to grow up properly. That guidance is far more effective than any government regulation, and it costs a hell of a lot less. The only thing is, it requires substantial effort on part of the parents.
Government intervention is the lazy way out. It's not any different than parking a kid in front of a TV and letting that be a babysitter. The government is so horribly inept at so much that it does, what makes you think it's going to raise a child properly?
As for being a 'valuable tool', the Internet is obviously not doing your brother much good if his GPA dropped that far that quickly and if you're concerned enough about his behaviour to bring it up here.
Lazy parents are doing more to exacerbate this problem than the porn industry...
If his addiction is a 'running joke' in your family, something is terribly wrong. Sounds like your parents have discarded their parental responsibilities to your brother. Or they've confused the Internet with the babysitter.
Kids can't exercise moderation, this is true. That's what adults are for, to exercise moderation for them. By force, if necessary. Yours don't seem to be doing that.
Don't blame the Internet, blame your parents. Give them a swift kick in the ass and tell them to quit fucking off and start being parents to that kid. Starting by grounding his ass off the computer for however long it takes to make him realise they're serious about it.
And if he complains about not being able to do his homework, give him a typewriter. Or a pencil.
I can load my gun with bullets. That makes it even more likely that I *could* use it to hurt someone. But the loading is not illegal. Even the shooting of targets in certain venues is not illegal. The shooting of people is.
In this same way, modifying XBox hardware in such a way that it *could* be used to play copied games is not illegal. Doesn't matter what it's going to be used for, it's not illegal to mod it. What is illegal to do is to copy the software, but that is not the same act as modifying the hardware.
Hell, even shooting someone doesn't make the act of loading the gun beforehand illegal.
(No, that's not a completely accurate analogy. Just using what's already being waved around)
Slashdot Mirror
No. We can't. That was proven a long time ago. Humanity is and will always be in conflict with itself.
The only way to bring peace to the world is to crush out every last spark of individuality and source of friction, and to do that you would have to use force, thus defeating your own goals.
Not saying war is a good thing, but conflict is inevitable. And there will always be those who are hyper enough to use force first.
Hot water (and/or soap) might do it.. I don't bother taking off the stickers... I use em to replace the crappy cases that EBGames puts their used Xbox games in, so it's not covering up a game title or anything.
And the tin boxes make nice shooting targets, they don't shatter like the CDs.
So you've been missing out on all the free DVD cases? bummer.
I think they call it "Drop Ceiling Grey".. not sure though.
They're going to blockade her ports and refuse to sell food to her?
That's a little overkill, isn't it?
Only at the fact that you bothered posting...
Maybe if he hadn't gone apeshit that day, people might have been able to take him more seriously...
At that point, the $5 drink is well-spent if it's tipped over your shoulder onto the kicking cretin behind you.
"Oops."
A flash camera works well too, although that causes other potentially innocent casualties in its blast radius.
No, it's a stupidity and laziness thing..
Damn, no more free DVD cases? That's gonna suck...
Go take a look at AT&T's GlobalNet.
Peace, brother. Peace and tranquility.
Such is the will of Landru.
Almost makes the days of Natalie Portman and hot grits worthy of nostalgia.. almost.
And that's where we'll have to agree to disagree - because I place zero faith in any global regulatory body to 'do the right thing' in this regard. Especially one that arrogates legal powers that supercede every country's laws. And with the ability to levy fines and legal action against individual citizens/subjects!? No thanks.
.xxx TLD just isn't an option. And even then, it would be a reactive system as new sites came online every day. Plus, porn would still be had by those that knew how to get it. The WWW isn't the only way to distribute files. Think back to the early days of warezing and the 0-day sites... back before places like gamecopyworld.com existed.
What one society may find offensive/explicit/whatever, another may not. There are dozens of examples of that already. And I'm not willing to let someone else be the judge and director of my morality any more than I'm willing to define yours for you.
Until we achieve a global system of government, a global *forced* (voluntary participation is an entirely different discussion)
And lets not forget peer-to-peer systems.. Pornster, anyone?
"So the fact is that the internet poses a serious challenge to parenting."
No more than any other peer pressure or addiction situation. And I'd say it's a lot easier than dealing with that other stuff. Pot is cheap, booze is plentiful, and it can be gotten when the parents aren't looking and can't control or direct the child's impulses.
An Internet (and/or porn) addiction, on the other hand, almost invariably takes place *in the home*, because grade schoolers tend not to have independent sources of income to buy big ticket items like computers or have credit to sign up for Internet access on their own. It's certainly not something you can 'sneak a hit' of in between classes.
And since it's in the home, it's very easy to intervene - turn off the computer, unplug the modem, disconnect the service if necessary. If only intervening between a child and drugs was as simple as cutting power to a box full of electronics...
Good luck with it all..
No, to keep the pattern it would have to be called the "Sapron".
Most people think how amazingly well the .edu TLD system works when they talk about .xxx. But it's not as clean an issue as .edu.
.edu, where only legit educational institutions are allowed to have a marker in it, and .xxx, where you'd have to *force* someone to register that kind of site. It's never easy to force people to do anything. You'd have to fight legal battles in every single connected country in the world to get that enforced. What happens if Denmark doesn't play along? Or any other country?
.xxx' glosses over the assignment of a staggeringly large amount of regulatory power, both financial and legal. Who gets it?
There's a difference between a TLD like
And that still doesn't answer the main question: who collects the fines? Who does the enforcing? Who says what is and what isn't 'sexually explicit'?
Simply saying 'create
And maybe little Janet needs to be more careful about giving out her email address to anyone and everyone who asks for it - that's how spam is gotten. My accounts get little to no spam, and zero porn. Mainly because I don't type them into every box that asks for it. Maybe little Janet's parents could teach her that, if they weren't so expectant that 'the Internet' do it all for them.
Ever hear of SpamAssassin? Or any of a dozen other spam filters? There are MTA-level tools that can filter that crap out at the tap. It's time people got to be more discriminating about who they take email service from. Go with a company that provides spam filtering and you'll be a lot less aggravated.
Great, that's all the 'morning moron' jockeys need is a legitimate excuse to say "DAM Radio" a lot.
"We're on the DAM Radio this morning! Turn up your DAM Radio and listen to this! Hyuck!"
No porn email spam (which my 11 year old sister recieves via hotmail).
-
This can and should be covered under the broader umbrella of 'unsolicited bulk email'. The fact that it has titties in it doesn't make it any worse. Well, maybe it does, but if spam goes away, porn spam goes away. That fight is already being fought, no need to do it twice.
All porn must be paid access.
-
Why? That's about as arbitrary as it gets.
Entrance screens rated G.
-
Well, ok, there's precedent for that. But see below.
Fines for sites that appear in non-porn related web searches
-
Who pays the fine? The website owner? What if someone else submitted his site without his consent or knowledge? The search engine? Well, possibly, but that opens up a whole new can of worms - whereby the search engines would then have to start monitoring for content. And nice as Google is, I don't want it to have the power to tell me I can't go somewhere cos it's got titties there.
And the bigger question is - who regulates all this? Who gets to decide what passes and what doesn't? That's a lot of regulatory power. And how does it get enforced?
Also, I have to take issue at your use of 'gestapo'.. Strict (or even moderate) parenting hardly equates with that. Preventing a child from doing anything and everything it wants to do is hardly 'gestapo'. Making it avoid distractions while trying to learn things is not being 'gestapo'. Setting and enforcing rules is not being 'gestapo'.
And I also challenge your assertion that strict parents produce more deviants than uncaring ones. I submit that those kids had parents just as uncaring as any - the only difference is those parents let a set of rules babysit for them instead of a TV or computer.
You said it yourself, a child cannot moderate - it requires guidance and *some* semblance of authority to grow up properly. That guidance is far more effective than any government regulation, and it costs a hell of a lot less. The only thing is, it requires substantial effort on part of the parents.
Government intervention is the lazy way out. It's not any different than parking a kid in front of a TV and letting that be a babysitter. The government is so horribly inept at so much that it does, what makes you think it's going to raise a child properly?
As for being a 'valuable tool', the Internet is obviously not doing your brother much good if his GPA dropped that far that quickly and if you're concerned enough about his behaviour to bring it up here.
Lazy parents are doing more to exacerbate this problem than the porn industry...
If his addiction is a 'running joke' in your family, something is terribly wrong. Sounds like your parents have discarded their parental responsibilities to your brother. Or they've confused the Internet with the babysitter.
Kids can't exercise moderation, this is true. That's what adults are for, to exercise moderation for them. By force, if necessary. Yours don't seem to be doing that.
Don't blame the Internet, blame your parents. Give them a swift kick in the ass and tell them to quit fucking off and start being parents to that kid. Starting by grounding his ass off the computer for however long it takes to make him realise they're serious about it.
And if he complains about not being able to do his homework, give him a typewriter. Or a pencil.
That just means they're competing in the "Linux Buyer" space, not the "Microsoft-Must-Die-A-Hot-Shrieking-Death Advocate" space.
It's not always about Linux vs Microsoft, ya know.
Sounds like it'd be a perfect scapegoat for the next series of Budweiser commercials....
Except that this one isn't written by a nitwit.
People these days can't even be bothered to have computers do basic things for them, like spellchecking.
And they'll rip your head off for suggesting otherwise.
Pretty sad, really.
I can load my gun with bullets. That makes it even more likely that I *could* use it to hurt someone. But the loading is not illegal. Even the shooting of targets in certain venues is not illegal. The shooting of people is.
In this same way, modifying XBox hardware in such a way that it *could* be used to play copied games is not illegal. Doesn't matter what it's going to be used for, it's not illegal to mod it. What is illegal to do is to copy the software, but that is not the same act as modifying the hardware.
Hell, even shooting someone doesn't make the act of loading the gun beforehand illegal.
(No, that's not a completely accurate analogy. Just using what's already being waved around)