Libraries will never agree to release information on what people have been reading.
I sure hope so- at least, to the authorities.
It can be argued that a child's (minor's) reading history should be available to a parent, especially when a wider range of material is available.
The idea, though, that the community can "look over your shoulder" (like, if you sit in the libary and read, others can see the title of the book you're reading, and, perhaps, glance over your shoulder- there's no privacy from others) may help chill out abuses of the system. This places "control" (actually, attention) where it belongs- in the LOCAL community. Communities will vary in anxiety levels, so, let's not standardize the cultural wall too high since we don't want to lock too many folks out.
Remember- As a multi-cultural society, we are fairly permissive- which allows us to HANDLE multiple cultures. Any change away from this stance by raising our "minimal" level of expected behavior (it can be argued that these minimums have drifted downwards over the years) will raise cultural bars against others (though I'm something of a language bigot- I speak two languages: English, and BAD English) that may be unscalable without some kind of accomodation.
I've seen an interesting.sig once: "It _doesn't_ take all kinds. We simply _have_ all kinds."
On a side note: We tolerate pranking too much. I think this leads to criminality (with the sensation of doing unto others without consequence) faster than drugs. Too many are not taught about "how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot". A little bit of empathy is needed...
Yeah, my mind wanders. It's a miracle it ever finds it's way home.
-- "Son, it is impossible for you to EVER learn about impotence the hard way." - me
Actually, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled on this? Children are (despite evidence to the contrary) not fully "citizens". (Sarcasm implied- is there an emoticon for this?)
I find the argument about abused children trying to find help online an interesting issue- considering that my finer half has lived through this (and I live with many of the scars). My wife is extremely protective of her children and agonizes over "normal" disciplinary action since she's taken a stand to break the cycle (IMHO she's done a very good job despite terrible things done to her by her first set of in-laws... Not that her current set of in-laws treat her much better).
So, the argument for some shielding is logical, but how much is enough? How much is too much?
In some ways a child's library card already limits a child's selection of books to borrow (though a child may browse and read, in the library, anything from the "adult":-) section), so, given this caveat, it can be argued that there be two sets of systems- one filtered, intended for children, and one for the adult side of the library- but even this is flawed.
As a parent, the one thing I want to be able to do with my children is TRUST them to consider their own integrity- physical, emotional and intellectual. If you teach your children properly it is possible to trust them- but you must also teach them WHY some of the material out there is not as interesting as they're being told...
(I would not want to view a porn site and find photos of my oldest daughter. Would you?)
What I want to instill is WHY there is little value to porn (or bomb-building, or whatnot).
The arguments that we need to keep bomb-building and hate sites away from our children sounds good- but I'd rather my children know about these and realize why they aren't a healthy diet for the mind. I also want my children (when old enough, though, WHEN is "old enough"? It varies from day to day!) to see this so they can build their own immunities- at least once.
As for tracking and reporting browsing behavior- perhaps it can be handled more generally. It also allows parents an ability to review the progress of their children (and to know where they are going).
Don't forget, though, that (IMHO) abusers are also controlling/domineering and will not allow much access to communications channels they don't control (which is why schools are supposed to keep an eye on things).
We should bring back house calls - when doctors could evaluate these risks...
Actually, the best filtering is to ensure there is NO expectation of privacy; If a librarian (coordinator/whatnow) is walking around and there is no way for a browsing user to "hide" the contents of the screen, there should be little difficulty. Additionally, for all users, how's about recording sites visited through the library system's firewall? Like a libary card would help them record what kind of material you are reading (assuming anybody is interested) a children's account would be associated with their parent's card, so the parent would get notification of material the children have accessed (if you're really paranoid).
Filtering should NOT be necessary- since, once you start filtering, where do you stop? China, for instance, finds political discourse offensive.
The First Amendment is not so much a right to speak as a right to hear other voices. While *I* would not be happy if my children read some of the material on the web (heck, there's stuff out there *I* don't even want to see, but it's sometimes helpful to trip over it on occasion as a booster for immunities) I would like to know where my son (and, someday, my daughter) have been reading, since it'll give me an idea of what I'm missing as a parent.
Perhaps the search for "easy, simple" solutions is wrong. Who ever said parenthood is easy?
Politics is the effort to sell easy, simple solutions- but there are none. Human nature implies a huge "gray zone", though there are some things that we must accept as minimums just to work together.
Laws are needed to constrain behavior- they should not be constraining thought.
Seriously, though, if the display tubes in the library are large (heck, just put monitor repeaters where others in the library can see, with enough defocussing to make text unreadable) and in a central place where people usually walk through (not some dingy back room) the community will correct itself. If you're determined to cruis porn, well, why shouldn't your neighbors know? The Library is a _public_ place! Let's keep it that way- leave it an open channel for information in print and otherwise...
IMHO, what drives Bill Gates stems back to the mid-70s, when he was demonstrating a BASIC interpreter for an 8080 kit system; He had a copy of his $300 interpreter stolen and pirated.
Since then, if you have no choice but to pay, well, you can't rip him off EVER again.
I suspect that there may be a small smidgen of respect that he wants, but, from where I think, he's more interested in making us all pay for the sin of piracy.
It ain't a search for respect, it's a search for revenge!
The biggest problem with "The tidal-wave of marketting BS continues" is that Bill buys ads- Big ads- in the "important" industry papers (look at ZDnet). His advertising gets him some extra visibility with the editors/publishers of these rags.
Linux doesn't have the same visibility- there is no multi-Billion $ company purchasing ads for Linux. Heck, this is one of the reasons geeks (like me) *like* Linux- up until recently it wasn't being hyped by clueless marketdroids.
*SIGH*
BTW, one reason that geeks/nerds/techies seldom suffer from a mid-life crisis is that... ...having a life is a pre-requisite.
Techies who don't wear ties don't have heart attacks- the ties increase the need for blood pressure, so suits need the extra pressure to get ANY oxygen to their brains. Of course, once they retire (and take off the tie) they have strokes...
(As for the last- Some of the Democratic Senators wanted Pres. Clinton to testify in front of the Senate but it took over an hour for the Republican Senators to stop laughing and explain to them that they had no way to swear him in.)
-soup (No man can learn about impotence the hard way.)
Slashdot Mirror
Libraries will never agree to release information on what people have been reading.
.sig once:
I sure hope so- at least, to the authorities.
It can be argued that a child's (minor's) reading history should be available to a parent, especially when a wider range of material is available.
The idea, though, that the community can "look over your shoulder" (like, if you sit in the libary and read, others can see the title of the book you're reading, and, perhaps, glance over your shoulder- there's no privacy from others) may help chill out abuses of the system. This places "control" (actually, attention) where it belongs- in the LOCAL community. Communities will vary in anxiety levels, so, let's not standardize the cultural wall too high since we don't want to lock too many folks out.
Remember- As a multi-cultural society, we are fairly permissive- which allows us to HANDLE multiple cultures. Any change away from this stance by raising our "minimal" level of expected behavior (it can be argued that these minimums have drifted downwards over the years) will raise cultural bars against others (though I'm something of a language bigot- I speak two languages: English, and BAD English) that may be unscalable without some kind of accomodation.
I've seen an interesting
"It _doesn't_ take all kinds. We simply _have_ all kinds."
On a side note: We tolerate pranking too much. I think this leads to criminality (with the sensation of doing unto others without consequence) faster than drugs. Too many are not taught about "how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot". A little bit of empathy is needed...
Yeah, my mind wanders. It's a miracle it ever finds it's way home.
--
"Son, it is impossible for you to EVER learn about impotence the hard way." - me
Kids have a right to privacy too.
:-) section), so, given this caveat, it can be argued that there be two sets of systems- one filtered, intended for children, and one for the adult side of the library- but even this is flawed.
Actually, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled on this? Children are (despite evidence to the contrary) not fully "citizens". (Sarcasm implied- is there an emoticon for this?)
I find the argument about abused children trying to find help online an interesting issue- considering that my finer half has lived through this (and I live with many of the scars). My wife is extremely protective of her children and agonizes over "normal" disciplinary action since she's taken a stand to break the cycle (IMHO she's done a very good job despite terrible things done to her by her first set of in-laws... Not that her current set of in-laws treat her much better).
So, the argument for some shielding is logical, but how much is enough? How much is too much?
In some ways a child's library card already limits a child's selection of books to borrow (though a child may browse and read, in the library, anything from the "adult"
As a parent, the one thing I want to be able to do with my children is TRUST them to consider their own integrity- physical, emotional and intellectual. If you teach your children properly it is possible to trust them- but you must also teach them WHY some of the material out there is not as interesting as they're being told...
(I would not want to view a porn site and find photos of my oldest daughter. Would you?)
What I want to instill is WHY there is little value to porn (or bomb-building, or whatnot).
The arguments that we need to keep bomb-building and hate sites away from our children sounds good- but I'd rather my children know about these and realize why they aren't a healthy diet for the mind. I also want my children (when old enough, though, WHEN is "old enough"? It varies from day to day!) to see this so they can build their own immunities- at least once.
As for tracking and reporting browsing behavior- perhaps it can be handled more generally. It also allows parents an ability to review the progress of their children (and to know where they are going).
Don't forget, though, that (IMHO) abusers are also controlling/domineering and will not allow much access to communications channels they don't control (which is why schools are supposed to keep an eye on things).
We should bring back house calls - when doctors could evaluate these risks...
Actually, the best filtering is to ensure there is NO expectation of privacy; If a librarian (coordinator/whatnow) is walking around and there is no way for a browsing user to "hide" the contents of the screen, there should be little difficulty. Additionally, for all users, how's about recording sites visited through the library system's firewall? Like a libary card would help them record what kind of material you are reading (assuming anybody is interested) a children's account would be associated with their parent's card, so the parent would get notification of material the children have accessed (if you're really paranoid).
Filtering should NOT be necessary- since, once you start filtering, where do you stop? China, for instance, finds political discourse offensive.
The First Amendment is not so much a right to speak as a right to hear other voices. While *I* would not be happy if my children read some of the material on the web (heck, there's stuff out there *I* don't even want to see, but it's sometimes helpful to trip over it on occasion as a booster for immunities) I would like to know where my son (and, someday, my daughter) have been reading, since it'll give me an idea of what I'm missing as a parent.
Perhaps the search for "easy, simple" solutions is wrong. Who ever said parenthood is easy?
Politics is the effort to sell easy, simple solutions- but there are none. Human nature implies a huge "gray zone", though there are some things that we must accept as minimums just to work together.
Laws are needed to constrain behavior- they should not be constraining thought.
Seriously, though, if the display tubes in the library are large (heck, just put monitor repeaters where others in the library can see, with enough defocussing to make text unreadable) and in a central place where people usually walk through (not some dingy back room) the community will correct itself. If you're determined to cruis porn, well, why shouldn't your neighbors know? The Library is a _public_ place! Let's keep it that way- leave it an open channel for information in print and otherwise...
IMHO, what drives Bill Gates stems back to the mid-70s, when he was demonstrating a BASIC interpreter for an 8080 kit system; He had a copy of his $300 interpreter stolen and pirated.
Since then, if you have no choice but to pay, well, you can't rip him off EVER again.
I suspect that there may be a small smidgen of respect that he wants, but, from where I think, he's more interested in making us all pay for the sin of piracy.
It ain't a search for respect, it's a search for revenge!
-soup
The biggest problem with "The tidal-wave of marketting BS continues" is that Bill buys ads- Big ads- in the "important" industry papers (look at ZDnet). His advertising gets him some extra visibility with the editors/publishers of these rags.
Linux doesn't have the same visibility- there is no multi-Billion $ company purchasing ads for Linux. Heck, this is one of the reasons geeks (like me) *like* Linux- up until recently it wasn't being hyped by clueless marketdroids.
*SIGH*
BTW, one reason that geeks/nerds/techies seldom suffer from a mid-life crisis is that...
...having a life is a pre-requisite.
Techies who don't wear ties don't have heart attacks- the ties increase the need for blood pressure, so suits need the extra pressure to get ANY oxygen to their brains. Of course, once they retire (and take off the tie) they have strokes...
Actually, there have been 5 forms of falsehood:
1) Lies
2) Damned Lies
3) Statistics
4) Benchmarks
5) MicroSoft Product (schedule) Announcements
Add to this a 6th:
6) Presidential Testimony.
(As for the last- Some of the Democratic Senators wanted Pres. Clinton to testify in front of the Senate but it took over an hour for the Republican Senators to stop laughing and explain to them that they had no way to swear him in.)
-soup
(No man can learn about impotence the hard way.)