AutoLink will add tags to web pages that take you to other places in services that were accessible to everyone. SmartLink was intended to replace existing tags with links to places MS wanted you to go, and to add links that would only work if you happened to be running Windows.
Not that I like this idea either, but it's not exactly the same evil.
Well, except for the fact that SS is the most efficient program in history. I have yet to see a private charity that disburses 99.2 percent of what it brings in.
And if private charities are so hot, why did we need SS in the first place? They aren't. They failed. People starved, or froze.
We got SS because although people value the ideal of charity, they need some auxiliary willpower (aka government legislation) to actually go through with it.
If everybody did this, it could become a real problem for the Chinese. (duh)
Hmmm.
Maybe that's what they want.
The Chinese government seems to be doing everything they can to make sure that people in China don't have access to any information that is potentially critical of their regime. This is easy to do with websites (including Google it seems) but somewhat harder with email.
If they allow spammers to run free though, and every admin in the west blacklists all.cn sites as a preventative mesure... that severely hampers email exchanges between Chinese citizens and the rest of the world.
Wow. That's the most content-free piece of "journalism" I've seen in a while.
It plays the "parents don't know their kid was arrested" card.
It plays the "public info was used in a way you didn't know was happening" card.
It gives us no details about anything we could use to make a judgement about whether what happened was appropriate or not.
Reconstructing:
Cops are called to the scene of a (presumably, since otherwise they would have had to call his parents) legal adult acting "off".
Does he have a medic alert bracelet? Is he cooperative? It isn't said, but I'll give the cops the benefit of the doubt and say probably not, cause most people don't. I don't, even though I'm on meds. They aren't important enough that I feel I need it. That's my judgement call. And usually, the cops on the scene aren't actually allowed to go through his pockets to find anything more than id, which is usually pretty obvious, so they arrest him and he gets booked.
After he's booked for D&D (or whatever), someone goes through his wallet, finds medical info, and decides he really needs to be in a hospital, not jail. So off he's sent. Does he want his parents to be contacted? We don't know. Doesn't say. He's a legal adult, so there's no requirement to contact them. He's about to be shipped off to the nuthouse, but he's not technically incompetent for another 72 hours yet, so if he doesn't want them called, they won't be. That is still his right, isn't it?
Lawyers do as lawyers do. They'd have a designated person sitting there calling as people were booked if the email system wasn't set up. And this at least gets that freak out of the cops face/space.
Parents get pissy because they weren't contacted. News hound smells "scare" story and writes it up, rather badly.
Slashdot finds it because of the "wow, this publicly available information was sent through email!" connection.
Actually, I think you prove what a lot of people are saying, and what common sense should tell anyone: everyone is different, and there is no arbitrary formula that will work for everyone.
What were the alternatives, as supplied by some of the others on the board?
Forbid access entirely in the first place. Unrealistic: they're going to have net access somewhere, somehow. And then you won't know where, or when/if they're screwing up. They'll also feel untrusted and resentful, and probably be more likely to act out. The worst of all possible situations.
Give them access, and assume they'll obey the rules. Better, but still unrealistic, as your experience shows. Kids are people; all people are different. Some will follow the rules out of obedience, some because they understand the motives, and some will just ignore them. May or may not work, and it's a crapshoot: you'll know they're doing something, but not what or how.
Watch over their shoulders. A better variant on 1. They can't do anything they don't want you to see, and they don't think you're an irrational prick for keeping them away from an important medium, but they probably feel like you don't trust them, so why should they be trustworthy? And they'll do whatever they like when you're not watching.
Log all traffic, and yell at them after the fact. Nice idea, but probably gets you back to the 'you set up rules' stage, and you've already seen where that got you. And they'll feel spied on and resentful.
Do what you did. Give them rules, test them, if they fail, show them why the rules exist. They know you care enough to spend time making sure they're following rules, it puts the onus of screwing up on them since they would never have known it was you if they hadn't, and I'm pretty sure they'll remember the lesson. People learn by making mistakes, yes. No, the consequence shouldn't be rape and/or death. The trick of parenting, which you seem to have figured out, is finding out how to make the consequences embarassing and frightening, but not dangerous.
Unfortunately, letting kids make mistakes in controlled circumstances takes a lot of things that too many parents these days don't seem to want to invest: time, to spend with the kids explaining the rules in the first place, and to check up on them later; creativity, to figure out how to do it so that if they pass they'll never know, and if they fail, they'll learn; attention, so you'll know your kids' interests well enough to know where to push on their weak spots. It's much easier to set up draconian rules before and yell after they've been broken, or to simply pretend everything will be OK.
Slashdot Mirror
AutoLink will add tags to web pages that take you to other places in services that were accessible to everyone. SmartLink was intended to replace existing tags with links to places MS wanted you to go, and to add links that would only work if you happened to be running Windows. Not that I like this idea either, but it's not exactly the same evil.
Well, except for the fact that SS is the most efficient program in history. I have yet to see a private charity that disburses 99.2 percent of what it brings in. And if private charities are so hot, why did we need SS in the first place? They aren't. They failed. People starved, or froze. We got SS because although people value the ideal of charity, they need some auxiliary willpower (aka government legislation) to actually go through with it.
If everybody did this, it could become a real problem for the Chinese. (duh)
.cn sites as a preventative mesure ... that severely hampers email exchanges between Chinese citizens and the rest of the world.
...
Hmmm.
Maybe that's what they want.
The Chinese government seems to be doing everything they can to make sure that people in China don't have access to any information that is potentially critical of their regime. This is easy to do with websites (including Google it seems) but somewhat harder with email.
If they allow spammers to run free though, and every admin in the west blacklists all
I wonder
Wow. That's the most content-free piece of "journalism" I've seen in a while.
It plays the "parents don't know their kid was arrested" card.
It plays the "public info was used in a way you didn't know was happening" card.
It gives us no details about anything we could use to make a judgement about whether what happened was appropriate or not.
Reconstructing:
Cops are called to the scene of a (presumably, since otherwise they would have had to call his parents) legal adult acting "off".
Does he have a medic alert bracelet? Is he cooperative? It isn't said, but I'll give the cops the benefit of the doubt and say probably not, cause most people don't. I don't, even though I'm on meds. They aren't important enough that I feel I need it. That's my judgement call. And usually, the cops on the scene aren't actually allowed to go through his pockets to find anything more than id, which is usually pretty obvious, so they arrest him and he gets booked.
After he's booked for D&D (or whatever), someone goes through his wallet, finds medical info, and decides he really needs to be in a hospital, not jail. So off he's sent. Does he want his parents to be contacted? We don't know. Doesn't say. He's a legal adult, so there's no requirement to contact them. He's about to be shipped off to the nuthouse, but he's not technically incompetent for another 72 hours yet, so if he doesn't want them called, they won't be. That is still his right, isn't it?
Lawyers do as lawyers do. They'd have a designated person sitting there calling as people were booked if the email system wasn't set up. And this at least gets that freak out of the cops face/space.
Parents get pissy because they weren't contacted. News hound smells "scare" story and writes it up, rather badly.
Slashdot finds it because of the "wow, this publicly available information was sent through email! " connection.
How is this related to MRO again?
Freedom means they get to look like whatever they want. And that's a good thing.
What were the alternatives, as supplied by some of the others on the board?
Forbid access entirely in the first place. Unrealistic: they're going to have net access somewhere, somehow. And then you won't know where, or when/if they're screwing up. They'll also feel untrusted and resentful, and probably be more likely to act out. The worst of all possible situations.
Give them access, and assume they'll obey the rules. Better, but still unrealistic, as your experience shows. Kids are people; all people are different. Some will follow the rules out of obedience, some because they understand the motives, and some will just ignore them. May or may not work, and it's a crapshoot: you'll know they're doing something, but not what or how.
Watch over their shoulders. A better variant on 1. They can't do anything they don't want you to see, and they don't think you're an irrational prick for keeping them away from an important medium, but they probably feel like you don't trust them, so why should they be trustworthy? And they'll do whatever they like when you're not watching.
Log all traffic, and yell at them after the fact. Nice idea, but probably gets you back to the 'you set up rules' stage, and you've already seen where that got you. And they'll feel spied on and resentful.
Do what you did. Give them rules, test them, if they fail, show them why the rules exist. They know you care enough to spend time making sure they're following rules, it puts the onus of screwing up on them since they would never have known it was you if they hadn't, and I'm pretty sure they'll remember the lesson.
People learn by making mistakes, yes. No, the consequence shouldn't be rape and/or death. The trick of parenting, which you seem to have figured out, is finding out how to make the consequences embarassing and frightening, but not dangerous.
Unfortunately, letting kids make mistakes in controlled circumstances takes a lot of things that too many parents these days don't seem to want to invest: time, to spend with the kids explaining the rules in the first place, and to check up on them later; creativity, to figure out how to do it so that if they pass they'll never know, and if they fail, they'll learn; attention, so you'll know your kids' interests well enough to know where to push on their weak spots. It's much easier to set up draconian rules before and yell after they've been broken, or to simply pretend everything will be OK.