Whatever, you and I aren't likely to see eye to eye on this particular point. I happen to think that parents have the right to both pass their morals on to their children and have a say in what those children are exposed to.
exhibit A: laws against gay marriage
My solution to the whole gay marriage issue would be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions. If people want some else to be qualified to make medical decisions on their behalf, inherent their property, decide how they are to be buried, etc, let them sign a contract stating as such and/or write a will. Other than needing to be of the age of majority there's no limitations that I'm aware of regarding who could sign such a contract.
There's no reason for the Government to be involved in the business of "joining" two people together. All it does is provide a platform for people on both sides of the culture war to try and impose their respective morality on the rest of us. Frankly I'm sick and tired of the people on both sides of the issue.
When said "thoughts, morals and ideals" could quite easily result in harm to others, this is not a bad thing.
Yes, it is. The Government has no right to be sticking it's nose into the home. If the kids (or parent for that matter) actually harm somebody then that's another matter entirely but you don't have the right to bring the thought police into my house to make sure I'm only passing on politically acceptable ideas to my children.
I am offering an example of where that may not be true.
While ignoring all of my examples. I could make the argument that raising your kids to be communists or scientologists could result in harm to others but you glossed over those examples because you know it's not as PC to attack political ideals as it is to attack racism.
You might like to think every man is an island, but it simply isn't true. You live in a group of people and that entails responsibilities as well as rights.
And one of those rights is the right to pass my morals and ideals onto my offspring.
Because you are advocating a system that actively facilitates it.
I'd advocating a system that keeps the Government out of the business of regulating the thoughts, morals and ideals that you pass onto your children.
Ah. So if parents are raising their children to be psychopathic serial killers, you don't feel society has any justification for action ?
Nice strawman. What do any of the examples I mentioned have to do with serial killers?
This is a discussion about what information children should be exposed to as part of their education.
And parents have a right to have a say in that educational process. At the end of the day the education system exists to teach us about math, science, culture, history, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't exist to tell us how we should feel about our fellow human beings or to teach us morality.
There was an interesting example of this posted on Wikileaks a year or so ago, of an American nuclear bomb design obtained from the Russians, which contained a few minor and difficult-to-find design flaws that would have prevented the bomb from actually working if it had been built along those lines.
No, I don't think that and why would you assume that I do? Haven't you ever heard the expression "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
What I think is that people have the right to raise their offspring with a minimal amount of interference from the state. The state has the right to interfere if if the offspring are being physically abused, malnourished, neglected, etc. It shouldn't have the right to interfere because it doesn't agree with the morals or lack thereof that I'm passing onto my children.
Just think about it for a minute. Where do you draw the line? If you can take children away from a racist because of what he or she believes can you also take them away from a scientologist? What about someone that holds an extremely unpopular political viewpoint, like a committed communist? What about the pastor that believes homosexuality is a sin? Can the state interfere in the upbringing of those children as well or do we reserve the thought police for the 'R' word?
I'm sorry, but if a child is well fed, well taken care of and well educated I really don't think the state has any right to interfere in the upbringing of that child. I have the right to pass my morals and beliefs onto my children, no matter how repugnant you may find them to be.
No, kids have rights. But to say that the state has the right to come in and intervene merely because it doesn't agree with how you are raising your kids is a bridge too far, IMHO. Are you going to take away a racist's kids because you don't approve of the ideals that he/she is sharing with them? Where do you draw the line?
God, I love you left-wing morons! You just can't pass up the chance to try and work in a nice Rush Limbaugh reference can you?
Have you ever read any of the books from the Ryanverse? Here's a hint: Rush Limbaugh would love Jack Ryan. Jack Ryan started out as a apolitical character who eventually become President and advocated for neo-con/religious-right leaning policies. That's the change in his character that I was bemoaning.
Don't let the facts get the way of your assumptions though:)
If you've every read Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy, it's the same scenario.
Except Clancy jumped the shark somewhere around the time that Jack Ryan ceased being the all-American hero and started spouting Clancy's own political beliefs. Sorry, this is totally offtopic and I expect to be modded as such but it needed to be said. Sad thing is that he used to write some REALLY cool novels.
You can't "shield" your kids from the real world, and even if you think you can, you can't expect this from others. When they start to use the internet, you need to teach them how to handle the real internet.
Your preaching to the choir here. The only issue I take is with the notion that the state should intervene in cases where the parents HAVE decided to try and shield their kids from the real world.
Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people drop the 'T' word without any idea of what it actually means. It's this kind of stupidity that makes me think the Framers were correct to define Treason within the Constitution so it couldn't be used for political purposes.....
Because your kid has rights, and you don't automatically get to throw them out just because you "don't approve."
Where did I say that you have the right to throw your kids out on the street?
Oh, and if you don't want the state (me) telling you how to raise your kids... stop using my property tax to pay for your kids education and foot the bill yourself.
Many people have done just that because they are fed up with people such as yourself that think the school system should be teaching YOUR morals to THEIR kids.
I think that is what it comes down to. What constitutes abuse?
Shielding them from a lifestyle that I don't approve of != abuse. When they turn 18 they are free to learn whatever they want about that lifestyle. Do you really think it's ok for the state to interfere with parenting on this level?
It's not quite that simple. Not all parents are supportive and nurturing. Kids should have access to certain types of information no matter how their parents feel about it.
I disagree. Parents should be able to raise their kids as they see fit, provided they aren't abusing them. Why is it any business of the state if I want to shield my kids from a lifestyle that I may not approve of?
(Disclaimer before I get modded down by the PC police: I don't have any objections to homosexuality, but I do have objections to the state telling me how to raise my kids and the above paragraph is intended to play devil's advocate)
So we can assume that the right to keep and bear arms can include the use of trojans for personal reasons.
Perhaps the Fed would like to tax and license the use of trojans. Only after an approved trojan safety course has been passed, of course.
Other permits would be required to use a trojan outside of ones home and some public venues could ban the use of trojans in their facilities.
Requiring a permit to use trojans outside of the home wouldn't seem consistent with the Democrats position on sex education;)
He can spoof ips yet he can't install software to detect unwanted outbound traffic?
Detecting it would seem to be a phyrric victory. What good is knowing ahead of time that the FBI has discovered who you are and will be along to arrest you within hours, depending on how bad traffic is?
A wiser course of action would have been to run off a live-cd with firewall rules configured that only allowed outbound traffic to his anonymizer/tor/botnet/whatever he was using. Combine that with a security policy that wouldn't allow software to be installed and you could probably negate threats like these. "Borrowing" someone's unsecured wi-fi network and making sure that you used a throwaway wireless card (or at least changed the MAC) would also be advised. Preferably from a location really far away from where you live.
Of course an even wiser course of action would be to not engage in criminal activity to begin with, but apparently this guy decided that wasn't right for him;)
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever, you and I aren't likely to see eye to eye on this particular point. I happen to think that parents have the right to both pass their morals on to their children and have a say in what those children are exposed to.
exhibit A: laws against gay marriage
My solution to the whole gay marriage issue would be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions. If people want some else to be qualified to make medical decisions on their behalf, inherent their property, decide how they are to be buried, etc, let them sign a contract stating as such and/or write a will. Other than needing to be of the age of majority there's no limitations that I'm aware of regarding who could sign such a contract.
There's no reason for the Government to be involved in the business of "joining" two people together. All it does is provide a platform for people on both sides of the culture war to try and impose their respective morality on the rest of us. Frankly I'm sick and tired of the people on both sides of the issue.
When said "thoughts, morals and ideals" could quite easily result in harm to others, this is not a bad thing.
Yes, it is. The Government has no right to be sticking it's nose into the home. If the kids (or parent for that matter) actually harm somebody then that's another matter entirely but you don't have the right to bring the thought police into my house to make sure I'm only passing on politically acceptable ideas to my children.
I am offering an example of where that may not be true.
While ignoring all of my examples. I could make the argument that raising your kids to be communists or scientologists could result in harm to others but you glossed over those examples because you know it's not as PC to attack political ideals as it is to attack racism.
You might like to think every man is an island, but it simply isn't true. You live in a group of people and that entails responsibilities as well as rights.
And one of those rights is the right to pass my morals and ideals onto my offspring.
This is extremely bad news for lazy students everywhere. Won't someone please think of the plagiarists? :)
Because you are advocating a system that actively facilitates it.
I'd advocating a system that keeps the Government out of the business of regulating the thoughts, morals and ideals that you pass onto your children.
Ah. So if parents are raising their children to be psychopathic serial killers, you don't feel society has any justification for action ?
Nice strawman. What do any of the examples I mentioned have to do with serial killers?
This is a discussion about what information children should be exposed to as part of their education.
And parents have a right to have a say in that educational process. At the end of the day the education system exists to teach us about math, science, culture, history, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't exist to tell us how we should feel about our fellow human beings or to teach us morality.
There was an interesting example of this posted on Wikileaks a year or so ago, of an American nuclear bomb design obtained from the Russians, which contained a few minor and difficult-to-find design flaws that would have prevented the bomb from actually working if it had been built along those lines.
So THAT'S why my nuclear bomb didn't work ;)
No, I don't think that and why would you assume that I do? Haven't you ever heard the expression "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
What I think is that people have the right to raise their offspring with a minimal amount of interference from the state. The state has the right to interfere if if the offspring are being physically abused, malnourished, neglected, etc. It shouldn't have the right to interfere because it doesn't agree with the morals or lack thereof that I'm passing onto my children.
Just think about it for a minute. Where do you draw the line? If you can take children away from a racist because of what he or she believes can you also take them away from a scientologist? What about someone that holds an extremely unpopular political viewpoint, like a committed communist? What about the pastor that believes homosexuality is a sin? Can the state interfere in the upbringing of those children as well or do we reserve the thought police for the 'R' word?
I'm sorry, but if a child is well fed, well taken care of and well educated I really don't think the state has any right to interfere in the upbringing of that child. I have the right to pass my morals and beliefs onto my children, no matter how repugnant you may find them to be.
No, kids have rights. But to say that the state has the right to come in and intervene merely because it doesn't agree with how you are raising your kids is a bridge too far, IMHO. Are you going to take away a racist's kids because you don't approve of the ideals that he/she is sharing with them? Where do you draw the line?
God, I love you left-wing morons! You just can't pass up the chance to try and work in a nice Rush Limbaugh reference can you?
Have you ever read any of the books from the Ryanverse? Here's a hint: Rush Limbaugh would love Jack Ryan. Jack Ryan started out as a apolitical character who eventually become President and advocated for neo-con/religious-right leaning policies. That's the change in his character that I was bemoaning.
Don't let the facts get the way of your assumptions though :)
However, society as whole - whom the State is the representative of - does.
No, I'm sorry, it doesn't.
Seriously folks-- does the sound of someone beaming down terajoules from the sky make you just a little bit nervous?
Yeah, but we'll only need the solar power plant until 2050 when Fusion becomes available ;)
Voyager too, right?
Sorry, again I disagree. The State has no right telling David Duke that he needs to teach his kids an enlightened view of African-Americans.
And how the hell did you read my comment of "shield my kids from a lifestyle that I don't approve of" and make the leap to "violently racist" anyway?
If you've every read Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy, it's the same scenario.
Except Clancy jumped the shark somewhere around the time that Jack Ryan ceased being the all-American hero and started spouting Clancy's own political beliefs. Sorry, this is totally offtopic and I expect to be modded as such but it needed to be said. Sad thing is that he used to write some REALLY cool novels.
You can't "shield" your kids from the real world, and even if you think you can, you can't expect this from others. When they start to use the internet, you need to teach them how to handle the real internet.
Your preaching to the choir here. The only issue I take is with the notion that the state should intervene in cases where the parents HAVE decided to try and shield their kids from the real world.
Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people drop the 'T' word without any idea of what it actually means. It's this kind of stupidity that makes me think the Framers were correct to define Treason within the Constitution so it couldn't be used for political purposes.....
Since when do we mod people troll around here for dropping Star Trek references? This is a geek site after all.....
Because your kid has rights, and you don't automatically get to throw them out just because you "don't approve."
Where did I say that you have the right to throw your kids out on the street?
Oh, and if you don't want the state (me) telling you how to raise your kids... stop using my property tax to pay for your kids education and foot the bill yourself.
Many people have done just that because they are fed up with people such as yourself that think the school system should be teaching YOUR morals to THEIR kids.
Hey, that's my IP address! drinkypoo hacked my computer! Where's the FBI when I need them?
I think that is what it comes down to. What constitutes abuse?
Shielding them from a lifestyle that I don't approve of != abuse. When they turn 18 they are free to learn whatever they want about that lifestyle. Do you really think it's ok for the state to interfere with parenting on this level?
It's not quite that simple. Not all parents are supportive and nurturing. Kids should have access to certain types of information no matter how their parents feel about it.
I disagree. Parents should be able to raise their kids as they see fit, provided they aren't abusing them. Why is it any business of the state if I want to shield my kids from a lifestyle that I may not approve of?
(Disclaimer before I get modded down by the PC police: I don't have any objections to homosexuality, but I do have objections to the state telling me how to raise my kids and the above paragraph is intended to play devil's advocate)
Actually iptables can match usernames, process ids and command names as well.
If they knew his IP address, why would they need the trojan to identify him? TFA says he was using an anonymizer service of some sort.
it would be trivial to get someone to slip a piece of data into an auto-update for a specific customer.
How would that help them in a case like this where they didn't know who that specific customer was?
So we can assume that the right to keep and bear arms can include the use of trojans for personal reasons. Perhaps the Fed would like to tax and license the use of trojans. Only after an approved trojan safety course has been passed, of course. Other permits would be required to use a trojan outside of ones home and some public venues could ban the use of trojans in their facilities.
Requiring a permit to use trojans outside of the home wouldn't seem consistent with the Democrats position on sex education ;)
He can spoof ips yet he can't install software to detect unwanted outbound traffic?
Detecting it would seem to be a phyrric victory. What good is knowing ahead of time that the FBI has discovered who you are and will be along to arrest you within hours, depending on how bad traffic is?
A wiser course of action would have been to run off a live-cd with firewall rules configured that only allowed outbound traffic to his anonymizer/tor/botnet/whatever he was using. Combine that with a security policy that wouldn't allow software to be installed and you could probably negate threats like these. "Borrowing" someone's unsecured wi-fi network and making sure that you used a throwaway wireless card (or at least changed the MAC) would also be advised. Preferably from a location really far away from where you live.
Of course an even wiser course of action would be to not engage in criminal activity to begin with, but apparently this guy decided that wasn't right for him ;)