Yes, I think they (we) would. Assuming the book is pertaining to a the existance of God. The science books contain issues that Americans have differing views on, namely, evolution.
I don't think the book states in any chapter that, "God is a fact." -- therefore, any disclaimer to the contrary would be silly.
MTU is small, yes -- but in Michigan, they have a HUGE connection to the internet. Perhaps this is also part of the way a student was tracked without the cooperation of the university?
I work at a K12 school in Michigan, and our ISP is the same as MTU -- it's a huge ISP (merit.edu), and several backbones go through MTU.
One of my students is actually going to MTU next year, because of the bandwidth.:)
:) We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I seriously do respect what you're saying -- especially because you say it respectfully.
Brainwashing them = good parenting?
How does "decide for themselves" go with "based on the guidelines I've laid down"? Haven't you already decided?
I have already decided right from wrong, yes. How does that fit with "decide for themselves" ? Well, my hope is that after years of my example, they'll be able to distinguish right from wrong on thier own -- again based on the guidelines I've laid down. Both by rule and action.
Lastly, I *do* see the "naked pictures" as damaging to their emotional and spiritual well-being. Back to the agreeing to disagree. I think we both have the right to feel and act the way we do, and therein lies the crux of the matter. You infringe on my rights by not filtering, and I infringe on your rights by filtering. I don't think there is a cut and dry answer -- but I do thank you for your respectfully submitted replies.
Here I agree with what you are saying, except the "means to an end" Not all bad sites can be blocked, just like not all accidents can be stopped with seat belts. In the same manner, some people are injured BECAUSE of seatbelts, just like some sites are blocked that are probably good.
When it comes to children, I feel we should err on the side of caution. I do see frustrated students that find sites that probably shouldn't be blocked. At the same time, however, I see very few blatently "bad" sites on our computer screens at school.
CIPA should not take the place of supervision and responsibility, it should aid in the wise use of internet resources. Back to my analogy, seatbelts shouldn't be used as a license to drive poorly, but rather to aid in safety.
Well, at the very least, she won't be getting the education she's there to get. (No, I don't consider being "educated in the ways of the world" the type of education she should be getting at school)
Will she be sheltered? I hope so.
Do we have to prepare our children for the "real world" by making them a part of it? Isn't it our job to CHANGE the way our society is going? In my family, it is. Perhaps you are OK with Johnny "just being a kid", but that's not what I think it means to be a kid, and I dont' want my daughter to have any part of it.
Yes, I'm very conservative. It seems though, that I should have that right. The focus is on the infringment of children's rights to have unfiltered internet -- but what about my right to protect my daughter from what I feel is wrong and dangerous?
I'll end there, because it points back to my post regarding our elected officials representing the masses. Just like many people say to me, "If you want that much control, just homeschool" -- I'll say back, "If you want to allow unfiltered internet, do it at home"
Why? For the same reason I dont' allow my young children to have sex, smoke, or stay out out alone late at night.
They are children. They need to mature.
" Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... "
Yes. Which is EXACTLY WHY we need to stop them from being exposed to things like internet "porn." Granted, this is my opinion, but I lump that attitude in with the idea of teaching kids not to smoke by putting them in a closet with a big stogie. It's my job to protect my children, and teach them right from wrong so when they ARE old enough -- they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down.
I am the Technology Director at a K12 school in a conservative, small, rural town. Our district has approx 1200 students, and we use "squidguard" to filter the internet.
I hope CIPA sticks around, because it gives the parents in our community the comfort that their kids are at least semi-protected. We use a proxy-authentication, so if a parent decided their child is not allowed to use the 'net, they can't. BUT, if it wasn't a law that we filtered, many many children wouldn't be able to access the internet at all.
Is it morality? Perhaps. Is it fear of the "big bad internet" ? Likely. As a parent, I'm (perhaps naively) confident that my children would not misuse the internet, but what about the kid at the computer next to them? If little Johnny visits "phat-butts.com" -- I don't want my daughter exposed to that during World History...
And finally, not a flamebait, but my thoughts -- True, the government cannot force religious views. BUT, thankfully, elected officials are perfectly allowed to publicly show their faith system. We elect a *person* into office, and I personally want one that represents his or her thoughts, whether or not it offends people. Laws are based on the moral (often religious) views of our officials, and as long as they don't force the *practice* of a certain religion, then hoorah!
MoviX is a linux distro designed for just that. It's new, young, and needs developers. (Roberto is great though)
Many of the PVR apps build on an existing distro, this one is entirely to BE a PVR. Also, it boots from CD, so the hard drive is free to use for storage, etc.
http://movix.sf.net
-Shawn
I was wondering too. I'm certain it wasn't "overlooked" -- so I really do want to know what the security tactics used might be....it's gonna take a lot of warchalk to cover the entire park.;)
Exactly. Sad to post a "me too" but man you hit the nail on the head. I can't imagine not having my Tivo... It seems funny to remember not being able to pause TV to go make a cup of tea.
PVR, try it, you'll never go back.
Slashdot Mirror
And Einstein was a guy who thought about stuff for a while and wrote them down.
Thank you -- that was great. (Seriously)
Fair enough (I didn't follow the link, but I believe you) -- do any animals *actually* hibernate? And if so, how do they avoid rotting?
I'm really not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious.
Pardon my simplicity in this -- but, don't bears do it? I dont' think they wake up rotten zombies in the spring... What's their trick?
Serta files for a patent on, "waking up in the morning"
My bad, I misread. I thought you meant on the front of the *science* book you wanted the new sticker.
Your comment makes no sense, since Bibles are not allowed in schools as textbooks.
Yes, I think they (we) would. Assuming the book is pertaining to a the existance of God. The science books contain issues that Americans have differing views on, namely, evolution. I don't think the book states in any chapter that, "God is a fact." -- therefore, any disclaimer to the contrary would be silly.
Wow... never maxed out my connection before, even downloading torrents... thanks whysanity, I received the file at 780K/sec...
Torrents rule...
Just report to the RIAA that these individuals were trying to rip the Madonna CD from your CD-ROM. That should do it. ;o)
MTU is small, yes -- but in Michigan, they have a HUGE connection to the internet. Perhaps this is also part of the way a student was tracked without the cooperation of the university?
:)
I work at a K12 school in Michigan, and our ISP is the same as MTU -- it's a huge ISP (merit.edu), and several backbones go through MTU.
One of my students is actually going to MTU next year, because of the bandwidth.
:) We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I seriously do respect what you're saying -- especially because you say it respectfully.
Brainwashing them = good parenting? How does "decide for themselves" go with "based on the guidelines I've laid down"? Haven't you already decided?
I have already decided right from wrong, yes. How does that fit with "decide for themselves" ? Well, my hope is that after years of my example, they'll be able to distinguish right from wrong on thier own -- again based on the guidelines I've laid down. Both by rule and action.
Lastly, I *do* see the "naked pictures" as damaging to their emotional and spiritual well-being. Back to the agreeing to disagree. I think we both have the right to feel and act the way we do, and therein lies the crux of the matter. You infringe on my rights by not filtering, and I infringe on your rights by filtering. I don't think there is a cut and dry answer -- but I do thank you for your respectfully submitted replies.
Here I agree with what you are saying, except the "means to an end" Not all bad sites can be blocked, just like not all accidents can be stopped with seat belts. In the same manner, some people are injured BECAUSE of seatbelts, just like some sites are blocked that are probably good.
When it comes to children, I feel we should err on the side of caution. I do see frustrated students that find sites that probably shouldn't be blocked. At the same time, however, I see very few blatently "bad" sites on our computer screens at school.
CIPA should not take the place of supervision and responsibility, it should aid in the wise use of internet resources. Back to my analogy, seatbelts shouldn't be used as a license to drive poorly, but rather to aid in safety.
Well, at the very least, she won't be getting the education she's there to get. (No, I don't consider being "educated in the ways of the world" the type of education she should be getting at school)
Will she be sheltered? I hope so.
Do we have to prepare our children for the "real world" by making them a part of it? Isn't it our job to CHANGE the way our society is going? In my family, it is. Perhaps you are OK with Johnny "just being a kid", but that's not what I think it means to be a kid, and I dont' want my daughter to have any part of it.
Yes, I'm very conservative. It seems though, that I should have that right. The focus is on the infringment of children's rights to have unfiltered internet -- but what about my right to protect my daughter from what I feel is wrong and dangerous?
I'll end there, because it points back to my post regarding our elected officials representing the masses. Just like many people say to me, "If you want that much control, just homeschool" -- I'll say back, "If you want to allow unfiltered internet, do it at home"
Why? For the same reason I dont' allow my young children to have sex, smoke, or stay out out alone late at night.
They are children. They need to mature.
" Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... "
Yes. Which is EXACTLY WHY we need to stop them from being exposed to things like internet "porn." Granted, this is my opinion, but I lump that attitude in with the idea of teaching kids not to smoke by putting them in a closet with a big stogie. It's my job to protect my children, and teach them right from wrong so when they ARE old enough -- they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down.
I am the Technology Director at a K12 school in a conservative, small, rural town. Our district has approx 1200 students, and we use "squidguard" to filter the internet.
I hope CIPA sticks around, because it gives the parents in our community the comfort that their kids are at least semi-protected. We use a proxy-authentication, so if a parent decided their child is not allowed to use the 'net, they can't. BUT, if it wasn't a law that we filtered, many many children wouldn't be able to access the internet at all.
Is it morality? Perhaps. Is it fear of the "big bad internet" ? Likely. As a parent, I'm (perhaps naively) confident that my children would not misuse the internet, but what about the kid at the computer next to them? If little Johnny visits "phat-butts.com" -- I don't want my daughter exposed to that during World History...
And finally, not a flamebait, but my thoughts -- True, the government cannot force religious views. BUT, thankfully, elected officials are perfectly allowed to publicly show their faith system. We elect a *person* into office, and I personally want one that represents his or her thoughts, whether or not it offends people. Laws are based on the moral (often religious) views of our officials, and as long as they don't force the *practice* of a certain religion, then hoorah!
That's Mite who sense anyway.
MoviX is a linux distro designed for just that. It's new, young, and needs developers. (Roberto is great though) Many of the PVR apps build on an existing distro, this one is entirely to BE a PVR. Also, it boots from CD, so the hard drive is free to use for storage, etc. http://movix.sf.net -Shawn
I was wondering too. I'm certain it wasn't "overlooked" -- so I really do want to know what the security tactics used might be. ...it's gonna take a lot of warchalk to cover the entire park. ;)
Exactly. Sad to post a "me too" but man you hit the nail on the head. I can't imagine not having my Tivo... It seems funny to remember not being able to pause TV to go make a cup of tea. PVR, try it, you'll never go back.