Let me reply, as a Christian, to hopefully help balance some other comments, such as "I think religon is garbage, so when raising your kid, raise them atheist. I don't want you filling your kid's head with fairy tales and myths". Of course, athesiam is a religon, and to me it's the religon containing fairy tales and myths. Time will tell which of the many religons is the true one.
Atheism is not a religon; its arrived upon by evidence, or in this case, lack thereof. Nothing has ever suggested to me that there is a god, only that our understand is limited. Time won't tell, because you dopes will never abandon your irrational beliefs. Mine have been arrived at via philosophy and science.
That having been said, I think you're showing a healthy level of concern for your new child. My opinion is that sex is normal, healthy, great, etc. Of course, in a free society, the natural desire for sex will be exploited commercially. Indeed, it is the parents' job to guide their children as they see fit. I've never understood why so many parents teach their kids that sex is dirty, forbidden, and something to be ashamed of, yet expect them to have a happy marriage when they grow up. I think the key is moderation, as the Bible says, "be moderate in all things". I have no idea why so many Christians don't take that Biblical advice. I think the real challenge in parenting, and I wish you success, is not so much controlling what your child views, as it is teaching him/her how to view these things in a healthy manner.
Apparently you have a problem keeping the posters straight. I'm not the one going to have kids. That was the poster to which I replied. You act as if "be moderate in all things" isn't something that others have come up with thousands of years before the Bible was someone's wet dream. Stop kidding yourself. Basic reasoning will tell you moderation is important, no need for some story about some invisible man in the sky.
Oh, many parents teach their kids sex is evil and dirty because of your silly book. Look outside Judo-Christian theology, and sex is very in a very healthy light by just about every other culture we know of.
That being said, we are sexualizing our children at an alarming rate.
That's your perception. Even if its true, who are you to tell another how they should raise thier kids?
What bothers me more than titillating (pun intended) headlines is when we, as a society, think it's okay, even cute, to let our daughters dress up like the little slut girl bands they admire. And I'm not sure why any parent would think it's okay to let their pre-teen (or teen) wear a shirt or pants that say things like "juicy" on them. Or sending babies out in beauty pageants made up like little adults.
They aren't your kids, do not concern yourself with them. Who are you to say its wrong? Are what these parents doing interfering with your right to live your life as you want?
Children are much more aware of things than they used to be. No wonder, we're throwing it in their face in every area of society and then saying, "Ignore this until you get older."
You ignore the fact that biologically speaking, children are maturing faster. Seeing sex headlines (which they don't understand anyway) doesn't make them hit puberty earlier. Something is, but its not whats printed on a magzine cover or on TV.
Yes the fifth-grader might not be interested in the "housewife" magazines. But he will be sure to notice the anime girl on the latest gaming magazine that looks like she walked out of Penthouse.
Huh. In fifth grade, I actually found some penthouse magazines. Unrelated, that's also when we began sex education, in a Catholic school no less. One of the girls was already starting puberty, of course before we ever had "the talk and film."
I do remember that before I discovered / learned about sex, I didn't think anything odd of cartoons, except that they were fun and the battles between good and evil were pretty cool. I didn't see whatever that female Thundercat as a sex object, she was just what she was.
Ahh, the single wackjob. I can find dozens of articles by more than one expert that go against his research. Like this one.
Think about it, Harris is bunk. Your kids are very conservative Roman Catholics because its in their genes? Bull. Its pretty convient too; parents have no influence, oh unless they beat their kids or abuse them in some other way. Riiigh.
I agree completely with your conclusion, but this is a horrible justification for it. It wouldn't matter even if the rest of society agreed with him that this stuff should be censored - nobody has a right to tell other people what they can or cannot say, or print, or sing, or what-have-you. It's not a matter of being in line with some majoritarian social norms, it's a matter of each and every person's individual rights.
Yes, I agree, however the OP I'm not sure would. He's already objecting to the magazines and questioning if they should be "allowed" so I doubt he cares for personal liberties at all.
And if they take the economic route and get stores to remove them, can I still buy those magazines? How did that solution make everyone happy? I'm not talking about simply not shopping at a store; of course anyone can choose a store for whatever reason they like. But actively asking the store to remove them is not acceptable. Again, if they succeed its the same as if government enacted it.
I'm talking about things like Don Imus; a small group of people calling advertisers got him fired over words. Worse, they did so IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUND RAISER THAT BENEFITED CHILDREN.
If you don't like something, just don't buy it or listen or go to the store if it bothers you that much. The minute you start applying pressure, you're acting to censor, and you've crossed the line that violates other's free speech.
I see it often assumed here that because there are strong limits on government regulation of speech, any regulation of speech, self-imposed or socially-imposed, is not only unwarranted, but anathema.
Yes. Ultimately, there is no such thing as harmful ideas. Only deregaged morons that can't tell right from wrong because their parents were too busy sanitizing everything.
What is disturbing to me is that posters in this thread are effectively saying, "I can screw up your child, so I will."
Wow, nice strawman. Did anyone say that we'd FORCE anyone's kids to read women's magaizines? I don't think so. No one is actively trying to go out and screw up anyone's kid, we reconize the parent is THE most influential person in a childs life, and some silly headline won't turn a kid into some kind of sex freak. Get real.
While I value personal liberties, I believe in responsible exercise. I therefore sympathize with your objection to the magazines. Moreover, I won't swear or talk about sex in front your child, not because of any bargain, but because it is the right thing to do.
"While I value personal liberties, I believe that that society should bend to anyone's will, because I find something objectionable, possibly for not any rational reason." A good parent wouldn't raise an objection, they'd find a way to keep the material away from the child (or the child away from the material, in this case). As for "swearing," in the real world people do swear, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's a strong expression of feeling, and last I checked it we still had the freedom to experss ourselves. If one wants to shelter their child, I think one has a lot of work to do.
All the OP was talking about was hiding the real world from his kid. I'm not sure that's a great way to raise a child. But its his child, he can do what he wants, just don't expect us to do anything to make it easier to conform to his standards.
So you agree with my idea in principle, we're just quibbling over price. I can deal. I will agree that my child will be raised to respect your opinions, and not in a Southern Baptist "I respect your opinion, you hell-bound faggot" sense, but really to accept that you have the right to live your life the way you want. My child will also not kill you or your family for sport.
Nope, I don't agree at all with your idea. To start, I said no religion whatsoever, not "religion but tolerant." However, you obviously seem to miss the point. See, I don't want kids, because I don't want the responsibility. I don't want to modify or give up anything to have kids, certainly not some jackass on/. that I don't know. I awnt to live my life the way I want, and I want zero interference from you and your decisions about how you raise your kids. You raise them however you want, and leave me alone.
I find it somewhat disturbing too that you'd let society dicate so much how you'll raise your kids; what if society said that women were nothing but sex toys and can be used and discarded at will, and they'll be brought up to only serve men. To do this of course, your little girl will be taken from you. How far will you let society go in raising your kid before you take responsibility for your own child?
In exchange, I only ask that you not swear or talk about sex in front of my child before they're at least in middle school. That's all
No, you said you didn't like your kids seeing those magazines (which are just women's magazines, not even porn) until 18. Middle school usually ends at the latest at 13.
Everybody in this thread has assumed that I am somehow hell-bent on keeping my child away from all uncomfortable subjects until they're 18, and that I want everyone else to stop what they're doing so it doesn't interfere with my master plan. That's not the case, I just think people need to respect that children are impressionable, and just because it's primarily the parent's job to filter out the bad, it's not necessarily alright for you to act like there will never be children in a public place.
Maybe because you threw the number 18 out there? If your children really are impressionable, adn you don't feel you have enough influence on them to counteract what you dislike about society, I really believe you should keep them home. You chose to have kids, I didn't. Leave me out of your decisions, and your life, and all I want is the same from you.
If you can find the study, I'd like to see it. My anecdote backs up what you're saying. My wife used to get mad at me, saying I wasn't listening to her in the car. I told her if I don't hear here in the car at times, its because I need to concentrate more because of heavy traffic or other conditions. Now she has started to stop speaking when these things happen, and we pick up when there are more favorable conditions.
I also used to think that it was the parent's, and only the parent's, job to filter out inappropriate content. But then one day, I was in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, and every single one of the women's magazines had a headline like "Have Hot Sex Tonight!!", "Make Him Wild With Desire!!!", "Naughty Nasties You Can Do To Him In The Bedroom!!!!!!!!!!". Right there, in the open, next to the freaking candy.
Which is why many stores have a no-candy lane, which typically also don't have these magazines. The other option is to leave the kid at home. Again, society has apparently decided this is ok, so if you're in the minority that has a problem, YOU need to work around it, not bend the majority to your will.
Granted, there weren't pictures of the mentioned techniques on the front covers of these magazines, in fact the front cover pictures were your typical fully clothed, respectable looking, successful women, as you'd expect in a modern woman's magazine. But doesn't it seem like having those kinds of headlines at eye-level to a fifth grader might make our children get some wrong ideas about sexuality, as in, it should always be on their mind, because it's always on the front cover of those magazines?
That line of thinking is just plain dumb. Parents are the single greatest influence on their children, not all this outside stuff. Sex gets on your mind because of biological reasons, not because you saw magizines at an age where you might not even know what is being talked about. Do you think a kid that doesn't know about sex has any idea what the "naughty things you can do to him in the bedroom" implies?
What am I supposed to do about that kind of situation, keep my kid inside and away from grocery stores until they're 18? The point is, it is the parent's primary responsibility to filter out unwanted material, but that doesn't give you the right to go around glamorizing, or even normalizing, overtly sexual behavior in places you could reasonably expect to find a preschooler.
You're delusional if you think that a preschooler can even read the magazine cover and even know what is being talked about. You're also delusional if you think that hiding magazines will keep kids from ever knowing about sex. At some point biology enters into it. As a responsible parent, you should have discussed the relevent issues before that happens. There's a reason girls brought up in a strict Catholic upbringing and going to all Catholic schools become the campus slut in college.
I don't believe government regulation is the way to solve this kind of issue, but I think it's well within your rights (including your First Amendment rights), to speak out and ask the corporations, who do have some kind of control what gets displayed where, to do something about it.
No, its not. Instead of getting government to censor people, you're trying to get corporations to do it for you. Same result, different tactic. Censorship is censorship no matter what group is enforcing it.
For the record, I plan to use a locked-down computer with all sorts of nanny software when my child gets old enough to use one (he/she is due in July, which is why I've been thinking about it more), so this particular issue of Google and Yahoo possibly not doing enough to filter things for the populace at large isn't going to affect me. I just wanted to point out that society, including businesses and including you, the individual, isn't entirely free of responsibility when it comes to someone else's child.
If its my responsiblity to help raise your child, than I should get a say in how you're raising your child. If you're going to blame me because your child didn't come out the way you wanted, then I certainly can be more involved in how you raise your kid. For the record, I think religon is garbage, so when raising your kid, raise them atheist. I don't want you filling your kid's head with fairy tales and myths.
The cables thing, I think, is most easily solved by removing the entitlement the companies had to run cables wherever they so please. I'm pretty sure I, as a private citizen, am not allowed to just string stuff over the road without an appropriate permit.
So now we're in a position where you and others that live around me dictate if I can get phone service, or who I am use.
I also believe Marx was right about the problems of capitalism; it certainly isn't perfect, and does not provide for everyone. Where he went wrong was supposing that he could fix it by means of imposition. There is no perfect system. The best we can hope for is creating a system with maximum universal potential. I believe (only as a theory; I have never studied economics thoroughly and cannot back it up with numbers) that any government intervention will always have the effect of limiting either the maximum potential of the individual (as in communism) or universal potential within the group (as in corporatism). The free market, unhindered (and unaided) by the government is the point where these two principles converge most optimally. It is not perfect (as no human institution can be), but I think it's the best that's out there.
Lets be real. We tried that in the first and second industrial revolutions. It didn't converge those points at all, the individual was benefiting at the expense of the group. I don't see why you'd believe unhindered markets would be good when we've already been down that road. Please, pick up a history book, talk to history scholars. The only reason we didn't go communist as well is exactly because of government interference in the market and also allowing labor unions.
Unhindered capitalism lead to bloody communist revolutions.
So... how much oil is it taking us to fight the war and support our other troops around the world? I have a feeling that alone is a pretty significant amount. The supply also dropped off because we invaded Iraq, and previously were only letting them sell oil for food... but not anymore. In other words, we've done much to keep the supply low by our dealings in Iraq.
Its fine that you're at least consistent; what about my other points though, the "rats nest" of cables and the other problems of capitalism that drove people to marxism / communism?
They do, but that isn't the case here. These monopolies did not spontaneously generate from natural market forces: they were imposed on the market by the government. This same government has proven, time and time again, that they do not help the market; they hinder it.
Perhaps you think this is a good idea? There's a reason that we want fewer companies running cables. If by "hurting" the market you mean that companies cannot use right of way to gouge customers and forget about rural areas, then yes I suppose your right. Of course I believe companies must serve a greater good.. if they don't want to, then they should yield right of way, and each land owner should be able to charge whatever rent they like to run wires on their property.
The solution to fix this problem is simply; the problem with getting to that solution is corruption, which is always a problem even without government. But if you really want free market, start by arguing that no company ever gets a grant of right of way from individuals or communities.
The ideas Adam Smith put forth in The Wealth of Nations with regards to unregulated capitalism actually work, as they built not only our country, but the wealth of the western world. Das Kapital doesn't have the same track record.
Yes, the unrestrained market works. That's why trusts never form on their own, and of course there's no problems. Of course I suppose it depends on your definition of "works." If by "works," you mean that a few people end up very well off, while children ended up losing limbs or dying and the majority of people where not benefiting at all.
These conditions lead to communist revolutions in Russia and other countries; the reason they didn't happen here is because goverment began regulating the market, and those regulations lead to the formation of a middle class. So, some people don't make as much as they could, I really don't care. Marx was right in identifying problems with capitalism, just not with the solution. We don't need radical socialist revolution, just need to make things even for the working class.
That's a straw man, because the reality is that they aren't. Even casting scumsucking middlemen (record labels etc) aside, you can't just make a song and have done. It has to be performed and promoted, and that is why people choose to buy a cd or tickets to their concerts. If they don't deserve your money I guess you are not buying their CD. But don't pretend it's not work just because it is different from the kind of work you might do.
Quite a few bands have had only one hit song or album, and the members still live pretty comfortablly. I never said it wasn't work.. I simply said that one project should be enough to sustain them for the rest of their lives. They should have to create more or find another way to produce income.
I'm surprised that slashdot, being as thick as it is with people who claim to be artists of a sort (they write code for a living) and therefore make money directly as a result of the copyright law structure would argue that we should throw the whole baby out with the bathwater. Maybe because most of the people answering are not coders or are schmoes who only produce "works for hire" and therefore do not directly benefit from residuals. But if the residuals were not there for the company you have signed the copyright for your program over to; that is, if they were not allowed to sell your work for money, they would have no money to pay you. Furthermore the opportunity is there if you manage to create something in an unencumbered environment (no big corp gets to claim they own your work) YOU might be able to make some money off of those continuing sales. Either way though you are getting paid specifically because there is value to what you produced that people are willing to pay money for. If there was no copyright at all, they would not need to pay you, or worse it would be easier for other people to make money off your work while you get nothing.
First off, coding is not in any way "art." Its a science, pure and simple. Second, I never said we should get rid of copyright, only that it should expire and the copywritten work needs to enter the public domain. Nothing wrong with that, and in fact software copyrights can expire quicker than other copyrights, because new versions are released fairly quickly. In other words, I shouldn't be able to make one really great app; I should make one great application, benefit, but either improve it with a new version or make a totally different great application.
The position I'm in now is also different; its doubtful my work here would be valuable outside this company, because the software I create is tightly coupled to the way they work. Why would anyone pay me to write such an application if they didn't own it in the end?
The IP laws need serious overhaul. But let's not get carried away here. There does need to be a structure to allow creators of intellectual work to be paid else it's back to the cotton fields for all of us.
I never said otherwise; I think copyright should be shorter and it should NOT be possible to extend it ever, but I do think it serves a purpose.
Monopolies do pop up without government help. Your logic is flawed too; why couldn't further regulation fix the problem? All that needs to be done is the FCC says "you can't raise rates and you can't throttle traffic." Done.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the algorithm is "obvious to experts in the field."
Yes, because the Stone is a metric measument, right?
Tell me, do your maps have road names as well as landmark names? If its only road name, and there are no signs, I fail to see how a map helps.
Let me reply, as a Christian, to hopefully help balance some other comments, such as "I think religon is garbage, so when raising your kid, raise them atheist. I don't want you filling your kid's head with fairy tales and myths". Of course, athesiam is a religon, and to me it's the religon containing fairy tales and myths. Time will tell which of the many religons is the true one.
Atheism is not a religon; its arrived upon by evidence, or in this case, lack thereof. Nothing has ever suggested to me that there is a god, only that our understand is limited. Time won't tell, because you dopes will never abandon your irrational beliefs. Mine have been arrived at via philosophy and science.
That having been said, I think you're showing a healthy level of concern for your new child. My opinion is that sex is normal, healthy, great, etc. Of course, in a free society, the natural desire for sex will be exploited commercially. Indeed, it is the parents' job to guide their children as they see fit. I've never understood why so many parents teach their kids that sex is dirty, forbidden, and something to be ashamed of, yet expect them to have a happy marriage when they grow up. I think the key is moderation, as the Bible says, "be moderate in all things". I have no idea why so many Christians don't take that Biblical advice. I think the real challenge in parenting, and I wish you success, is not so much controlling what your child views, as it is teaching him/her how to view these things in a healthy manner.
Apparently you have a problem keeping the posters straight. I'm not the one going to have kids. That was the poster to which I replied. You act as if "be moderate in all things" isn't something that others have come up with thousands of years before the Bible was someone's wet dream. Stop kidding yourself. Basic reasoning will tell you moderation is important, no need for some story about some invisible man in the sky.
Oh, many parents teach their kids sex is evil and dirty because of your silly book. Look outside Judo-Christian theology, and sex is very in a very healthy light by just about every other culture we know of.
That being said, we are sexualizing our children at an alarming rate.
That's your perception. Even if its true, who are you to tell another how they should raise thier kids?
What bothers me more than titillating (pun intended) headlines is when we, as a society, think it's okay, even cute, to let our daughters dress up like the little slut girl bands they admire. And I'm not sure why any parent would think it's okay to let their pre-teen (or teen) wear a shirt or pants that say things like "juicy" on them. Or sending babies out in beauty pageants made up like little adults.
They aren't your kids, do not concern yourself with them. Who are you to say its wrong? Are what these parents doing interfering with your right to live your life as you want?
Children are much more aware of things than they used to be. No wonder, we're throwing it in their face in every area of society and then saying, "Ignore this until you get older."
You ignore the fact that biologically speaking, children are maturing faster. Seeing sex headlines (which they don't understand anyway) doesn't make them hit puberty earlier. Something is, but its not whats printed on a magzine cover or on TV.
Yes the fifth-grader might not be interested in the "housewife" magazines. But he will be sure to notice the anime girl on the latest gaming magazine that looks like she walked out of Penthouse.
Huh. In fifth grade, I actually found some penthouse magazines. Unrelated, that's also when we began sex education, in a Catholic school no less. One of the girls was already starting puberty, of course before we ever had "the talk and film."
I do remember that before I discovered / learned about sex, I didn't think anything odd of cartoons, except that they were fun and the battles between good and evil were pretty cool. I didn't see whatever that female Thundercat as a sex object, she was just what she was.
Ahh, the single wackjob. I can find dozens of articles by more than one expert that go against his research. Like this one.
Think about it, Harris is bunk. Your kids are very conservative Roman Catholics because its in their genes? Bull. Its pretty convient too; parents have no influence, oh unless they beat their kids or abuse them in some other way. Riiigh.
I agree completely with your conclusion, but this is a horrible justification for it. It wouldn't matter even if the rest of society agreed with him that this stuff should be censored - nobody has a right to tell other people what they can or cannot say, or print, or sing, or what-have-you. It's not a matter of being in line with some majoritarian social norms, it's a matter of each and every person's individual rights.
Yes, I agree, however the OP I'm not sure would. He's already objecting to the magazines and questioning if they should be "allowed" so I doubt he cares for personal liberties at all.
And if they take the economic route and get stores to remove them, can I still buy those magazines? How did that solution make everyone happy? I'm not talking about simply not shopping at a store; of course anyone can choose a store for whatever reason they like. But actively asking the store to remove them is not acceptable. Again, if they succeed its the same as if government enacted it.
I'm talking about things like Don Imus; a small group of people calling advertisers got him fired over words. Worse, they did so IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUND RAISER THAT BENEFITED CHILDREN.
If you don't like something, just don't buy it or listen or go to the store if it bothers you that much. The minute you start applying pressure, you're acting to censor, and you've crossed the line that violates other's free speech.
I see it often assumed here that because there are strong limits on government regulation of speech, any regulation of speech, self-imposed or socially-imposed, is not only unwarranted, but anathema.
Yes. Ultimately, there is no such thing as harmful ideas. Only deregaged morons that can't tell right from wrong because their parents were too busy sanitizing everything.
What is disturbing to me is that posters in this thread are effectively saying, "I can screw up your child, so I will."
Wow, nice strawman. Did anyone say that we'd FORCE anyone's kids to read women's magaizines? I don't think so. No one is actively trying to go out and screw up anyone's kid, we reconize the parent is THE most influential person in a childs life, and some silly headline won't turn a kid into some kind of sex freak. Get real.
While I value personal liberties, I believe in responsible exercise. I therefore sympathize with your objection to the magazines. Moreover, I won't swear or talk about sex in front your child, not because of any bargain, but because it is the right thing to do.
"While I value personal liberties, I believe that that society should bend to anyone's will, because I find something objectionable, possibly for not any rational reason." A good parent wouldn't raise an objection, they'd find a way to keep the material away from the child (or the child away from the material, in this case). As for "swearing," in the real world people do swear, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's a strong expression of feeling, and last I checked it we still had the freedom to experss ourselves. If one wants to shelter their child, I think one has a lot of work to do.
All the OP was talking about was hiding the real world from his kid. I'm not sure that's a great way to raise a child. But its his child, he can do what he wants, just don't expect us to do anything to make it easier to conform to his standards.
So you agree with my idea in principle, we're just quibbling over price. I can deal. I will agree that my child will be raised to respect your opinions, and not in a Southern Baptist "I respect your opinion, you hell-bound faggot" sense, but really to accept that you have the right to live your life the way you want. My child will also not kill you or your family for sport.
/. that I don't know. I awnt to live my life the way I want, and I want zero interference from you and your decisions about how you raise your kids. You raise them however you want, and leave me alone.
Nope, I don't agree at all with your idea. To start, I said no religion whatsoever, not "religion but tolerant." However, you obviously seem to miss the point. See, I don't want kids, because I don't want the responsibility. I don't want to modify or give up anything to have kids, certainly not some jackass on
I find it somewhat disturbing too that you'd let society dicate so much how you'll raise your kids; what if society said that women were nothing but sex toys and can be used and discarded at will, and they'll be brought up to only serve men. To do this of course, your little girl will be taken from you. How far will you let society go in raising your kid before you take responsibility for your own child?
In exchange, I only ask that you not swear or talk about sex in front of my child before they're at least in middle school. That's all
No, you said you didn't like your kids seeing those magazines (which are just women's magazines, not even porn) until 18. Middle school usually ends at the latest at 13.
Everybody in this thread has assumed that I am somehow hell-bent on keeping my child away from all uncomfortable subjects until they're 18, and that I want everyone else to stop what they're doing so it doesn't interfere with my master plan. That's not the case, I just think people need to respect that children are impressionable, and just because it's primarily the parent's job to filter out the bad, it's not necessarily alright for you to act like there will never be children in a public place.
Maybe because you threw the number 18 out there? If your children really are impressionable, adn you don't feel you have enough influence on them to counteract what you dislike about society, I really believe you should keep them home. You chose to have kids, I didn't. Leave me out of your decisions, and your life, and all I want is the same from you.
If you can find the study, I'd like to see it. My anecdote backs up what you're saying. My wife used to get mad at me, saying I wasn't listening to her in the car. I told her if I don't hear here in the car at times, its because I need to concentrate more because of heavy traffic or other conditions. Now she has started to stop speaking when these things happen, and we pick up when there are more favorable conditions.
Indeed. I get enough from my peripheral vision to know if my wife is looking straight ahead or out of her door window.
The cyclist, pedestrian, or other car who is hit by a car had no choice in the matter.
Given the number of cyclists and pedestrians that cross whenever they want, where ever they want, I beg to disagree.
I also used to think that it was the parent's, and only the parent's, job to filter out inappropriate content. But then one day, I was in the checkout aisle at the grocery store, and every single one of the women's magazines had a headline like "Have Hot Sex Tonight!!", "Make Him Wild With Desire!!!", "Naughty Nasties You Can Do To Him In The Bedroom!!!!!!!!!!". Right there, in the open, next to the freaking candy.
Which is why many stores have a no-candy lane, which typically also don't have these magazines. The other option is to leave the kid at home. Again, society has apparently decided this is ok, so if you're in the minority that has a problem, YOU need to work around it, not bend the majority to your will.
Granted, there weren't pictures of the mentioned techniques on the front covers of these magazines, in fact the front cover pictures were your typical fully clothed, respectable looking, successful women, as you'd expect in a modern woman's magazine. But doesn't it seem like having those kinds of headlines at eye-level to a fifth grader might make our children get some wrong ideas about sexuality, as in, it should always be on their mind, because it's always on the front cover of those magazines?
That line of thinking is just plain dumb. Parents are the single greatest influence on their children, not all this outside stuff. Sex gets on your mind because of biological reasons, not because you saw magizines at an age where you might not even know what is being talked about. Do you think a kid that doesn't know about sex has any idea what the "naughty things you can do to him in the bedroom" implies?
What am I supposed to do about that kind of situation, keep my kid inside and away from grocery stores until they're 18? The point is, it is the parent's primary responsibility to filter out unwanted material, but that doesn't give you the right to go around glamorizing, or even normalizing, overtly sexual behavior in places you could reasonably expect to find a preschooler.
You're delusional if you think that a preschooler can even read the magazine cover and even know what is being talked about. You're also delusional if you think that hiding magazines will keep kids from ever knowing about sex. At some point biology enters into it. As a responsible parent, you should have discussed the relevent issues before that happens. There's a reason girls brought up in a strict Catholic upbringing and going to all Catholic schools become the campus slut in college.
I don't believe government regulation is the way to solve this kind of issue, but I think it's well within your rights (including your First Amendment rights), to speak out and ask the corporations, who do have some kind of control what gets displayed where, to do something about it.
No, its not. Instead of getting government to censor people, you're trying to get corporations to do it for you. Same result, different tactic. Censorship is censorship no matter what group is enforcing it.
For the record, I plan to use a locked-down computer with all sorts of nanny software when my child gets old enough to use one (he/she is due in July, which is why I've been thinking about it more), so this particular issue of Google and Yahoo possibly not doing enough to filter things for the populace at large isn't going to affect me. I just wanted to point out that society, including businesses and including you, the individual, isn't entirely free of responsibility when it comes to someone else's child.
If its my responsiblity to help raise your child, than I should get a say in how you're raising your child. If you're going to blame me because your child didn't come out the way you wanted, then I certainly can be more involved in how you raise your kid. For the record, I think religon is garbage, so when raising your kid, raise them atheist. I don't want you filling your kid's head with fairy tales and myths.
Well personally I think its the parents job, and not society's, to filter what the children should see.
The cables thing, I think, is most easily solved by removing the entitlement the companies had to run cables wherever they so please. I'm pretty sure I, as a private citizen, am not allowed to just string stuff over the road without an appropriate permit.
So now we're in a position where you and others that live around me dictate if I can get phone service, or who I am use.
I also believe Marx was right about the problems of capitalism; it certainly isn't perfect, and does not provide for everyone. Where he went wrong was supposing that he could fix it by means of imposition. There is no perfect system. The best we can hope for is creating a system with maximum universal potential. I believe (only as a theory; I have never studied economics thoroughly and cannot back it up with numbers) that any government intervention will always have the effect of limiting either the maximum potential of the individual (as in communism) or universal potential within the group (as in corporatism). The free market, unhindered (and unaided) by the government is the point where these two principles converge most optimally. It is not perfect (as no human institution can be), but I think it's the best that's out there.
Lets be real. We tried that in the first and second industrial revolutions. It didn't converge those points at all, the individual was benefiting at the expense of the group. I don't see why you'd believe unhindered markets would be good when we've already been down that road. Please, pick up a history book, talk to history scholars. The only reason we didn't go communist as well is exactly because of government interference in the market and also allowing labor unions.
Unhindered capitalism lead to bloody communist revolutions.
Hmm... I guess I forgot to use my humor tags..
Except for the name and address form you fill out to get the loyalty card?
Yes, but the Ausssie's didn't come up with it, an kangaroo had to show them. :-)
Ya, because YOU'RE id is so much lower..
So... how much oil is it taking us to fight the war and support our other troops around the world? I have a feeling that alone is a pretty significant amount. The supply also dropped off because we invaded Iraq, and previously were only letting them sell oil for food... but not anymore. In other words, we've done much to keep the supply low by our dealings in Iraq.
Its fine that you're at least consistent; what about my other points though, the "rats nest" of cables and the other problems of capitalism that drove people to marxism / communism?
They do, but that isn't the case here. These monopolies did not spontaneously generate from natural market forces: they were imposed on the market by the government. This same government has proven, time and time again, that they do not help the market; they hinder it.
Perhaps you think this is a good idea? There's a reason that we want fewer companies running cables. If by "hurting" the market you mean that companies cannot use right of way to gouge customers and forget about rural areas, then yes I suppose your right. Of course I believe companies must serve a greater good.. if they don't want to, then they should yield right of way, and each land owner should be able to charge whatever rent they like to run wires on their property.
The solution to fix this problem is simply; the problem with getting to that solution is corruption, which is always a problem even without government. But if you really want free market, start by arguing that no company ever gets a grant of right of way from individuals or communities.
The ideas Adam Smith put forth in The Wealth of Nations with regards to unregulated capitalism actually work, as they built not only our country, but the wealth of the western world. Das Kapital doesn't have the same track record.
Yes, the unrestrained market works. That's why trusts never form on their own, and of course there's no problems. Of course I suppose it depends on your definition of "works." If by "works," you mean that a few people end up very well off, while children ended up losing limbs or dying and the majority of people where not benefiting at all.
These conditions lead to communist revolutions in Russia and other countries; the reason they didn't happen here is because goverment began regulating the market, and those regulations lead to the formation of a middle class. So, some people don't make as much as they could, I really don't care. Marx was right in identifying problems with capitalism, just not with the solution. We don't need radical socialist revolution, just need to make things even for the working class.
That's a straw man, because the reality is that they aren't. Even casting scumsucking middlemen (record labels etc) aside, you can't just make a song and have done. It has to be performed and promoted, and that is why people choose to buy a cd or tickets to their concerts. If they don't deserve your money I guess you are not buying their CD. But don't pretend it's not work just because it is different from the kind of work you might do.
Quite a few bands have had only one hit song or album, and the members still live pretty comfortablly. I never said it wasn't work.. I simply said that one project should be enough to sustain them for the rest of their lives. They should have to create more or find another way to produce income.
I'm surprised that slashdot, being as thick as it is with people who claim to be artists of a sort (they write code for a living) and therefore make money directly as a result of the copyright law structure would argue that we should throw the whole baby out with the bathwater. Maybe because most of the people answering are not coders or are schmoes who only produce "works for hire" and therefore do not directly benefit from residuals. But if the residuals were not there for the company you have signed the copyright for your program over to; that is, if they were not allowed to sell your work for money, they would have no money to pay you. Furthermore the opportunity is there if you manage to create something in an unencumbered environment (no big corp gets to claim they own your work) YOU might be able to make some money off of those continuing sales. Either way though you are getting paid specifically because there is value to what you produced that people are willing to pay money for. If there was no copyright at all, they would not need to pay you, or worse it would be easier for other people to make money off your work while you get nothing.
First off, coding is not in any way "art." Its a science, pure and simple. Second, I never said we should get rid of copyright, only that it should expire and the copywritten work needs to enter the public domain. Nothing wrong with that, and in fact software copyrights can expire quicker than other copyrights, because new versions are released fairly quickly. In other words, I shouldn't be able to make one really great app; I should make one great application, benefit, but either improve it with a new version or make a totally different great application.
The position I'm in now is also different; its doubtful my work here would be valuable outside this company, because the software I create is tightly coupled to the way they work. Why would anyone pay me to write such an application if they didn't own it in the end?
The IP laws need serious overhaul. But let's not get carried away here. There does need to be a structure to allow creators of intellectual work to be paid else it's back to the cotton fields for all of us.
I never said otherwise; I think copyright should be shorter and it should NOT be possible to extend it ever, but I do think it serves a purpose.
Monopolies do pop up without government help. Your logic is flawed too; why couldn't further regulation fix the problem? All that needs to be done is the FCC says "you can't raise rates and you can't throttle traffic." Done.