In general, there are three objections to bragging about hydro: 1. It's old-ass technology, and will only impress people with it's sheer scale - not with your ability to make it. 2. It's environmentally destructive, so way to go you just flooded one environment and destroyed a river system. 3. It isn't available everywhere, so good for you but it does us no good.
If Scotland implemented solar, now that would be impressive. All of those green plants must live on something.
It gets into the weeds a bit, but it was legit so long as she didn't send anything classified. Of course, since she was largely responsible for classifying documents...
I never meant to come across that way. Your job as a parent is to gradually move your kid from totally dependent on you to totally independent on you. If your, say, 17 year old is still dependent on you and they have no privacy - you are not doing your job. If you give your 2-year-old total privacy they are likely to soon be dead. In this article the kid is 13 - that's a tough age. Some 13 year olds are very mature and can babysit other kids. Some can handle responsibility. Others still haven't grown enough synapses or something and need to be flogged (figuratively) over and over again. I don't know where this kid fell on that line, but I disagreed with the assertion that the originator of the thread made that the kid had an automatic right to privacy over his phone. For that matter, I don't agree that your right to privacy extends into your death - but that's another conversation.
I don't think due process is reasonable to apply to every household dust-up. A little at-home dictatorship once in a while won't hurt anyone. Eat your veggies!
I don't think removing some of your child's privacy when warranted counts as "helicopter parenting", nor do I feel like involving the authorities whenever the need to do so arises. It's bad enough to find heroin in your kid's coat pocket when doing the wash, it would be worse IMHO to then call the cops and have them arrested just so you could get them the help that they need.
Maybe, but there are more of them than there are us!
But seriously, this word was invented by Edison to scare people away from AC power. Almost immediately, people started using it to mean "shock" or "killed with a shock" rather than "executed by AC power". Etymology does not always win. Imagine if Steve Jobs invented a word which meant "killed while texting on an Android while driving". Would people really be defending his usage of the word over the colloquial usage that would surely take over?
I doubt a 13-year-old has tax returns or other such prizes on their phone. Identity theft of a 13-year-old is useless. An unlocked, found/stolen iPhone or similar will just get wiped to factory and re-used.
But yes, sharing the passcode is fine. I was just wondering about the "law disagrees with you" bit. I can certainly lend a phone to someone on the condition that they not lock it.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that if your child is a raging drug addict hiding it from their parents, their privacy to hide it should be respected, and the problem should be solved by another way, not by forcing their entire life to be exposed.
I disagree. Drug addiction will kill them and will ruin their life. They do not have the mental capacity to understand this, nor do they have the tools or life experience to know what to do about it.
Think about it in another way. There are some acts which adults commit where the state quite rightfully has tools at their disposal to remove that person's right to privacy. Think discovery during a civil trial or a search warrant during a criminal investigation. Children are not magically immune from this, but I think you'll agree that it isn't worth it to drag the government into the domestic realm until things get really bad. If little Suzy goes accuses little Billy of stealing her stuffed animal, I reserve the right to serve a "warrant" on little Billy's toy chest.
As for raising kids and their attitude about government. Hopefully they have the mental capacity to understand that "government" is not analogous to "parents". Government is the shitstorm we put up with so that we don't have to deal with warlords. Parenting, or something very close to it in tribal cultures, is inherent to the human condition and adolescence is a special phase of life with different rules. Every world culture has some form of "coming of age" practice - I think kids are smart enough to understand this. Or, they will be some day:)
That's a pretty antiquated usage. Though I find the simpler "shocked" to be more common, I work in the electronics industry and people use "electrocute" more or less interchangeably. At the very least, they use it do describe fatal accidents and not just purposeful killing. The dictionary should be updated to reflect the modern usage.
I just read a book (that I can't really recommend) by Harry Turtledove where the aliens make exactly this threat. We'll just slam a starship traveling at 0.5c into Earth. That ought to do it.
(The book was Homeward Bound. It was a disappointing followup to the Colonization series, which itself was a disappointing followup to the very fun World War series.)
I think there is a bit more to being a parent than that. Sure you need to let kids make mistakes, but you also need to be there to help them recover. You cannot help them without full information, and that means violating their privacy from time to time. You can't expect someone without full brain wiring to make good decisions - hell, even most adults have trouble from time to time. You can't expect someone with zero experience to know what their recovery options or strategies are. In other words, sometimes to do your job as a parent you need to get nosey.
Yes, I've heard two criticisms that really resonate: (1) a planet simply blinking out of existence is worth further scrutiny, and (2) the laser light would not be warm-body radiation, but at best some kind of combination of coherent light sources, which would be quite interesting and worth investigation.
I'm not worried about faster-than-light travel, or for that matter interstellar warfare. But if I were worried about alien invasion, I would assume that anyone who could get here in a reasonable amount of time could also wipe us out of existence. I think if you gave us a starship even earth technology could wipe out life on a defenseless planet.
I think you assume they are near a star and not out in the middle of nothing. That seriously constrains the problem. So does distance - why worry about stars more than a few hundred light years away?
The bigger problem in my totally ignorant opinion is that we have other planets in the solar system, and hiding Earth accomplishes very little. If they focus attention on any planet around our star, they will likely pick up radio signals from earth as well. I would think that Mars and Venus would both seem very interesting to aliens looking for life or even just potential habitable planets.
If however the child carefully hides Nazi propaganda under lock and key in their bedroom cupboard, especially if they went out of their way to ensure it wasn't a common household lock, then why do they not deserve a right to privacy?
What in the world are we talking about?
Unfortunately there is.
It is clear we view the world in a way that cannot be reconciled. A newborn is not "sentient" in any conventional sense of the word. Abstract concepts like "privacy" emerge much later, and they do not just "pop" into existence - the child experiments and develops the concept over time.
I think you will agree that there is no privacy expectation in a small child when you are wiping the poop from their ass. I think you will also agree that when a child leaves home, there is an expectation that they enjoy the full rights of any other adult. Finally, I hope you'll agree that there is not some magical step function - but rather a continuum where a child slowly gains more and more of the qualities of an adult as they mature.
I might not snoop on my kids, but I reserve the right to if they seem like they start doing something suspicious. Or, you know, if they die and can't care anymore. There is absolutely no harm that can be done to a person after their death. They are dead.
This "right to privacy in death" thing makes no sense. How would it be practically enforced? If I violate your privacy, you have no recourse unless you've set up a trust to finance a court case on your behalf. All of your rights die with you.
Would you like to expand on that a little bit? In particular, explain to me how forbidding my kid to lock their phone is illegal. And I say "their phone" only out of convenience, as a typical 13 year old has little or no income of their own.
They have - at the parent's discretion - a increasing amount of privacy from zero at birth to as much as they will ever have when they leave home. It's a continuum. At 13, and again it depends on the child and the rules of the house, a locked phone is perfectly within the bounds of a parent to forbid.
Yes, I'm sure that Reddit and other users like Apple have terrible lawyers, and we should all take the advice of a semi-anonymous stranger on Slashdot.
Q13. A part of the Internet known as the "Dark Net" is only accessible via special web browsers that allow you to surf the web anonymously. Journalists, human rights activists, dissidents and whistleblowers can use these services to rally against repression, exercise their fundamental rights to free expression and shed light upon corruption. At the same time, hackers, illegal marketplaces (eg. selling weapons and narcotics), and child abuse sites can also use these services to hide from law enforcement. Do you agree or disagree that the "Dark Net" should be shut down.
I'm not sure it's that poorly worded. But it is an "internet poll", whatever that means.
And looking at the actual data, in the US for instance it's only 33% who selected "strongly agree". 58% selected one of the wishy-washy "somewhat agree" or "somewhat disagree" boxes. Only 9% selected "strongly disagree".
Slashdot Mirror
In general, there are three objections to bragging about hydro:
1. It's old-ass technology, and will only impress people with it's sheer scale - not with your ability to make it.
2. It's environmentally destructive, so way to go you just flooded one environment and destroyed a river system.
3. It isn't available everywhere, so good for you but it does us no good.
If Scotland implemented solar, now that would be impressive. All of those green plants must live on something.
It gets into the weeds a bit, but it was legit so long as she didn't send anything classified. Of course, since she was largely responsible for classifying documents...
I think the AC was referring to the context in which you posted. Paraphrasing:
Them: "Hillary did it."
You: "So did Bush!"
It's quite reasonable that your comment could be construed as a defense of Hillary. That was my assumption.
I happen to think Bush is almost a model of how not to run a government. That Hillary did the same thing as him does not reflect well on her at all.
I never meant to come across that way. Your job as a parent is to gradually move your kid from totally dependent on you to totally independent on you. If your, say, 17 year old is still dependent on you and they have no privacy - you are not doing your job. If you give your 2-year-old total privacy they are likely to soon be dead. In this article the kid is 13 - that's a tough age. Some 13 year olds are very mature and can babysit other kids. Some can handle responsibility. Others still haven't grown enough synapses or something and need to be flogged (figuratively) over and over again. I don't know where this kid fell on that line, but I disagreed with the assertion that the originator of the thread made that the kid had an automatic right to privacy over his phone. For that matter, I don't agree that your right to privacy extends into your death - but that's another conversation.
I don't think due process is reasonable to apply to every household dust-up. A little at-home dictatorship once in a while won't hurt anyone. Eat your veggies!
I don't think removing some of your child's privacy when warranted counts as "helicopter parenting", nor do I feel like involving the authorities whenever the need to do so arises. It's bad enough to find heroin in your kid's coat pocket when doing the wash, it would be worse IMHO to then call the cops and have them arrested just so you could get them the help that they need.
Maybe, but there are more of them than there are us!
But seriously, this word was invented by Edison to scare people away from AC power. Almost immediately, people started using it to mean "shock" or "killed with a shock" rather than "executed by AC power". Etymology does not always win. Imagine if Steve Jobs invented a word which meant "killed while texting on an Android while driving". Would people really be defending his usage of the word over the colloquial usage that would surely take over?
I doubt a 13-year-old has tax returns or other such prizes on their phone. Identity theft of a 13-year-old is useless. An unlocked, found/stolen iPhone or similar will just get wiped to factory and re-used.
But yes, sharing the passcode is fine. I was just wondering about the "law disagrees with you" bit. I can certainly lend a phone to someone on the condition that they not lock it.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that if your child is a raging drug addict hiding it from their parents, their privacy to hide it should be respected, and the problem should be solved by another way, not by forcing their entire life to be exposed.
I disagree. Drug addiction will kill them and will ruin their life. They do not have the mental capacity to understand this, nor do they have the tools or life experience to know what to do about it.
Think about it in another way. There are some acts which adults commit where the state quite rightfully has tools at their disposal to remove that person's right to privacy. Think discovery during a civil trial or a search warrant during a criminal investigation. Children are not magically immune from this, but I think you'll agree that it isn't worth it to drag the government into the domestic realm until things get really bad. If little Suzy goes accuses little Billy of stealing her stuffed animal, I reserve the right to serve a "warrant" on little Billy's toy chest.
As for raising kids and their attitude about government. Hopefully they have the mental capacity to understand that "government" is not analogous to "parents". Government is the shitstorm we put up with so that we don't have to deal with warlords. Parenting, or something very close to it in tribal cultures, is inherent to the human condition and adolescence is a special phase of life with different rules. Every world culture has some form of "coming of age" practice - I think kids are smart enough to understand this. Or, they will be some day :)
That's a pretty antiquated usage. Though I find the simpler "shocked" to be more common, I work in the electronics industry and people use "electrocute" more or less interchangeably. At the very least, they use it do describe fatal accidents and not just purposeful killing. The dictionary should be updated to reflect the modern usage.
I just read a book (that I can't really recommend) by Harry Turtledove where the aliens make exactly this threat. We'll just slam a starship traveling at 0.5c into Earth. That ought to do it.
(The book was Homeward Bound. It was a disappointing followup to the Colonization series, which itself was a disappointing followup to the very fun World War series.)
I think there is a bit more to being a parent than that. Sure you need to let kids make mistakes, but you also need to be there to help them recover. You cannot help them without full information, and that means violating their privacy from time to time. You can't expect someone without full brain wiring to make good decisions - hell, even most adults have trouble from time to time. You can't expect someone with zero experience to know what their recovery options or strategies are. In other words, sometimes to do your job as a parent you need to get nosey.
Yes, I've heard two criticisms that really resonate: (1) a planet simply blinking out of existence is worth further scrutiny, and (2) the laser light would not be warm-body radiation, but at best some kind of combination of coherent light sources, which would be quite interesting and worth investigation.
I'm not worried about faster-than-light travel, or for that matter interstellar warfare. But if I were worried about alien invasion, I would assume that anyone who could get here in a reasonable amount of time could also wipe us out of existence. I think if you gave us a starship even earth technology could wipe out life on a defenseless planet.
I think you assume they are near a star and not out in the middle of nothing. That seriously constrains the problem. So does distance - why worry about stars more than a few hundred light years away?
The bigger problem in my totally ignorant opinion is that we have other planets in the solar system, and hiding Earth accomplishes very little. If they focus attention on any planet around our star, they will likely pick up radio signals from earth as well. I would think that Mars and Venus would both seem very interesting to aliens looking for life or even just potential habitable planets.
Well, now you know where I was coming from.
If however the child carefully hides Nazi propaganda under lock and key in their bedroom cupboard, especially if they went out of their way to ensure it wasn't a common household lock, then why do they not deserve a right to privacy?
What in the world are we talking about?
Unfortunately there is.
It is clear we view the world in a way that cannot be reconciled. A newborn is not "sentient" in any conventional sense of the word. Abstract concepts like "privacy" emerge much later, and they do not just "pop" into existence - the child experiments and develops the concept over time.
I think you will agree that there is no privacy expectation in a small child when you are wiping the poop from their ass. I think you will also agree that when a child leaves home, there is an expectation that they enjoy the full rights of any other adult. Finally, I hope you'll agree that there is not some magical step function - but rather a continuum where a child slowly gains more and more of the qualities of an adult as they mature.
Context is everything - this kid was 13.
I might not snoop on my kids, but I reserve the right to if they seem like they start doing something suspicious. Or, you know, if they die and can't care anymore. There is absolutely no harm that can be done to a person after their death. They are dead.
This "right to privacy in death" thing makes no sense. How would it be practically enforced? If I violate your privacy, you have no recourse unless you've set up a trust to finance a court case on your behalf. All of your rights die with you.
Would you like to expand on that a little bit? In particular, explain to me how forbidding my kid to lock their phone is illegal. And I say "their phone" only out of convenience, as a typical 13 year old has little or no income of their own.
Fine, but even in your country this kid would not meet that criteria.
They have - at the parent's discretion - a increasing amount of privacy from zero at birth to as much as they will ever have when they leave home. It's a continuum. At 13, and again it depends on the child and the rules of the house, a locked phone is perfectly within the bounds of a parent to forbid.
While I certainly disagree with even your premise, it definitely does not hold for a child keeping secrets from their parents.
Yes, I'm sure that Reddit and other users like Apple have terrible lawyers, and we should all take the advice of a semi-anonymous stranger on Slashdot.
Actual question:
I'm not sure it's that poorly worded. But it is an "internet poll", whatever that means.
And looking at the actual data, in the US for instance it's only 33% who selected "strongly agree". 58% selected one of the wishy-washy "somewhat agree" or "somewhat disagree" boxes. Only 9% selected "strongly disagree".