Whitelisting is a better idea than blacklisting, certainly. And parents (usually) know better than most what their child should be allowed to see. But once again, ignorance is the child's enemy, especially if parents don't do their homework when working on a white list, either because they're too busy, or they have more faith in the software than it deserves due to its inherent limitations. For example, kid asks parent "Can you unblock HotKiddies.com for me?" Parent goes "Sure" and proceeds to whitelist it, not knowing that (in our scenario) HotKiddies.com is a child porn site. That's the risk when you put that kind of burden on busy parents, and if we're "thinking of the children," then we have to think of that.
This aside from the obvious point that if a kid is more technically knowledgeable than their parents, they'll have plenty of opportunities to hack the software and whitelist whatever they want.
And, of course, the question of what to do in schools and libraries.
I agree that parents often don't pay enough attention to what their kids do on the Internet. But I would argue that it's often not possible for them to do that. Web filtering software is easily gotten around if you know enough, besides which there is simply too much out there to be able to keep track of it all using any kind of blacklist (which is, let's face it, the easiest method for ignorant* parents to understand, and therefore probably the method they're most likely to invest in). Failing the software option, parents have lives too. They simply don't have the time to watch everything their kids do, online or otherwise. The best thing for parents to do is not to supervise, but to educate their children. That is not to say that supervision is not a good thing. It's an extremely important part of the education process, and it's great for pointing out potentially dangerous situations, what to avoid and what to do about things you consider dangerous or offensive.
I'm fortunate enough to have a web-savvy dad, and when I was a kid learning to use the Internet, he taught me what I needed to know, then trusted me to look out for myself. I hope I can do the same for my kids some day.
*By 'ignorant' I mean lacking in knowledge, as opposed to 'stupid', meaning lacking in intelligence
I'd make it self unshielding on demand. That way Mr Villain can't steal you're ID if you forgot to shield it. Of course, that just means he needs to bribe Mr Shop Owner to give him your RFID code, but hey, if it makes it harder for the bad guys (whoever they happen to be today)...
And it just paid off. Cos the reason Intel donated all that stuff was that people would say "hey, that was Intel hardware in that robot. Intel must be pretty damn cool! I'm gonna go buy a P4!"
I don't know how many people are going to have to say this, but:
It's not the technology or anything else concretely valuable about the site that Facebook is trying to sell. It's the huge advertising audience they have at their disposal. Sure, whoever buys it may have to think up some original advertising methods to make their money back, but that kind of audience is worth it.
We're talking about an *absolutely huge* number of 18-25 year olds, with their shiny new credit cards (as somebody pointed out - i don't remember who), ready to spend online. It may not last, but $2bn may well be what that kind of audience is worth *right now*. And with some ongoing improvement, it's quite possible that the audience will be self-renewing, purely through word of mouth from entrenched users.
Even if a better quality product comes along, bigger *does* have value. People *will* sign up simply because it's what their friends are using. I've seen it. Hell, I've done it. But what this means is that the audience that exists there today may well exist a few years from now. And that $2bn may just end up being worth it.
Me, I wouldn't buy it at $2bn. But I can see how some advertising giant might.
Slashdot Mirror
Whitelisting is a better idea than blacklisting, certainly. And parents (usually) know better than most what their child should be allowed to see. But once again, ignorance is the child's enemy, especially if parents don't do their homework when working on a white list, either because they're too busy, or they have more faith in the software than it deserves due to its inherent limitations. For example, kid asks parent "Can you unblock HotKiddies.com for me?" Parent goes "Sure" and proceeds to whitelist it, not knowing that (in our scenario) HotKiddies.com is a child porn site. That's the risk when you put that kind of burden on busy parents, and if we're "thinking of the children," then we have to think of that.
This aside from the obvious point that if a kid is more technically knowledgeable than their parents, they'll have plenty of opportunities to hack the software and whitelist whatever they want.
And, of course, the question of what to do in schools and libraries.
I agree that parents often don't pay enough attention to what their kids do on the Internet. But I would argue that it's often not possible for them to do that. Web filtering software is easily gotten around if you know enough, besides which there is simply too much out there to be able to keep track of it all using any kind of blacklist (which is, let's face it, the easiest method for ignorant* parents to understand, and therefore probably the method they're most likely to invest in). Failing the software option, parents have lives too. They simply don't have the time to watch everything their kids do, online or otherwise. The best thing for parents to do is not to supervise, but to educate their children. That is not to say that supervision is not a good thing. It's an extremely important part of the education process, and it's great for pointing out potentially dangerous situations, what to avoid and what to do about things you consider dangerous or offensive.
I'm fortunate enough to have a web-savvy dad, and when I was a kid learning to use the Internet, he taught me what I needed to know, then trusted me to look out for myself. I hope I can do the same for my kids some day.
*By 'ignorant' I mean lacking in knowledge, as opposed to 'stupid', meaning lacking in intelligence
I'd make it self unshielding on demand. That way Mr Villain can't steal you're ID if you forgot to shield it. Of course, that just means he needs to bribe Mr Shop Owner to give him your RFID code, but hey, if it makes it harder for the bad guys (whoever they happen to be today)...
Ah, I get it. They should've called it America's War in the Web!
Why didn't I think of that?
Seriously, though, if they'd wanted to be really unambiguous and non-sensationalist about it, they probably would've said America's War using the Web.
Wouldn't they, now?
Navies make war on boats. These guys will make war on the Internet.
Get the idea?
Very cleverly worded and ambiguous, until you RTFA and think about it for a second.
What does his being Australian have to do with anything?
And it just paid off. Cos the reason Intel donated all that stuff was that people would say "hey, that was Intel hardware in that robot. Intel must be pretty damn cool! I'm gonna go buy a P4!"
I can fit 515GB in a square inch.
As long as you let me stack my 1 square inch black and white tiles high enough...
*fetches ladder*
I don't know how many people are going to have to say this, but:
It's not the technology or anything else concretely valuable about the site that Facebook is trying to sell. It's the huge advertising audience they have at their disposal. Sure, whoever buys it may have to think up some original advertising methods to make their money back, but that kind of audience is worth it.
We're talking about an *absolutely huge* number of 18-25 year olds, with their shiny new credit cards (as somebody pointed out - i don't remember who), ready to spend online. It may not last, but $2bn may well be what that kind of audience is worth *right now*. And with some ongoing improvement, it's quite possible that the audience will be self-renewing, purely through word of mouth from entrenched users.
Even if a better quality product comes along, bigger *does* have value. People *will* sign up simply because it's what their friends are using. I've seen it. Hell, I've done it. But what this means is that the audience that exists there today may well exist a few years from now. And that $2bn may just end up being worth it.
Me, I wouldn't buy it at $2bn. But I can see how some advertising giant might.