I agree with both your points. Definitely prosecuting these crimes as child porn is overkill and probably more damaging than the actual act it's supposed to be deterring. It's possible that making an example of one or two teens in nationally publicized type cases could work.. but really that seems intolerably fascist and maybe not even that effective.
I originally just posed the question of *WHAT* would be a good way to educate teens about this issue. It's not just a polaroid given to a significant other; it's an easily and discreetly copiable and transmittable picture and so the risks are different. This is a little bit of an issue for society in general too; evidenced by all the stories of indiscretions posted on myspace or facebook having ramification in their work life. I don't think it's too much to ask that we should start teaching people at young age the difference between digital information and physical material.
TBH, I never have, and I hope to God I never will.
But that's my point. I don't want to draw a parallel between sharing nude photos and drug addiction, because that seems hyperbolic, but how can we teach teens about these permanent or near permenant consequences without making them live it? Good parenting is one answer, but that only goes so far. Are there any other answers?
Yeah, I agree with you in that charging these kids with a crime is a pretty terrible way of dealing with it. I mean, I can see it (the threat of being charged with a crime) working most of the time on some kids in the "Scared Straight"-style, but it really does seem to be overkill. And, of course, if they're actually charged and jailed/registered that is WAY out of line.
That said, these actions can have consequences and, these days, they could turn into long term/permanent consequences. I'd draw a comparison to getting a tattoo on an exposed body part (face, hand, etc.). It's perfectly fine if you know what you're getting into, but teenage behavior generally isn't characterized by its foresight. Especially in instances like photo sharing where the expectation will be that it remains private, but whether or not it actually STAYS private is completely out of your hands. And with the longevity of data on the internet, the consequences can live on for a long time.
My question is simply what would be a good way to inform teens of the consequences of these actions without forcing them to live through the possible mistake. That's the whole point of education after all. Good parenting, obviously, is the best answer, but somehow that doesn't seem sufficient (this is a whole other discussion). Should the government really just be completely hands free in this? Would a school sponsored D.A.R.E. like program work? (probably not). I don't know the answer, but I think it's worthy of some thought.
Possibly a nude image of you floating around your school/the internet forever.
If that's what you want or you don't mind if that happens, fine, more power to you. However, I wonder how many teens doing this are actually thinking through their actions. I know when I was younger I was often caught up in the moment and did things I later regretted...
You can argue that these people need to make their own mistakes so they can learn from them, but the difference now is that these mistakes might hang around permanently (the internet has an odd habit of not letting things die)...
Mm.. I don't want to sound like a troll, and definitely not to give my support to TFA, but the opponent in your rhetorical argument actually brings up a good point. "But you could be wrong" should always be considered. The current financial crisis came about, in part, because of not enough people with a lot of money thought (or cared...) to ask "but what if I'm/we're/they're wrong?".
Of course I don't mean that the LHC should shut down or any number of risky scientific endeavors should not be undertaken; the benefits almost certainly outweigh the risks. And I certainly have no idea whether the calculations done to show the LHC is safe or unsafe were rigorously done. I'm just pointing out that, hey, doubt and questioning have their place in rigorous science and shouldn't always be brushed away as fear and ignorance by the masses. Even scientists can get caught up in their own enthusiasm for a project.
You're right when you say that suicidal people aren't entirely rational when they think suicide is their best option to get revenge on someone. However the original essay's point is that the successful conviction of Lori Drew now validates this wayward thinking. Lori Drew was punished by Megan's suicide which just reinforces the thoughts some may have that suicide is an effective method of exacting revenge.
I'm currently at the PDC and the way they revealed Secondlight was as part of a number of other MSR presentation in the keynote. They definitely stressed Azure, the various cloud services, and Windows 7 a lot more than Secondlight in particular. Being a slashdotter of course I didn't RTFA so maybe TFA maybe it sound the way you said.
So you're saying the masses don't know what mass is?
(hint: say it out loud).
Re:Read it! That was taken way out of context.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
My grammar is horrible, but is the grammar problem you saw "issue or release" and "mentioning or implying" being in different tenses? I think "mentioning or implying" is in the same tense as "relating to", which would make "mentioning or implying..." modify the "articles, advertising,..." like "relating to..." does and supports the idea that you're only forbidden to use or imply Google's name in marketing or press releases.
I agree whole heartedly with your comment and because of that, I see this legislation failing as a bad thing (sort of). While they shouldn't allow ID to be taught as science in schools, teaching kids that there are some people who disagree with evolution could be useful. Ideally, the "ambiguity" about the correctness of evolution would cause the kids (or let teachers make the kids) to go out and investigate the evidence for themselves. Evolution is much more convincing when you consider the evidence firsthand, instead of relying on people telling you it's right.
Of course, that is a perfect scenario. More likely than not kids will just be lazy and accept the idea that evolution might be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with both your points. Definitely prosecuting these crimes as child porn is overkill and probably more damaging than the actual act it's supposed to be deterring. It's possible that making an example of one or two teens in nationally publicized type cases could work.. but really that seems intolerably fascist and maybe not even that effective.
I originally just posed the question of *WHAT* would be a good way to educate teens about this issue. It's not just a polaroid given to a significant other; it's an easily and discreetly copiable and transmittable picture and so the risks are different. This is a little bit of an issue for society in general too; evidenced by all the stories of indiscretions posted on myspace or facebook having ramification in their work life. I don't think it's too much to ask that we should start teaching people at young age the difference between digital information and physical material.
TBH, I never have, and I hope to God I never will. But that's my point. I don't want to draw a parallel between sharing nude photos and drug addiction, because that seems hyperbolic, but how can we teach teens about these permanent or near permenant consequences without making them live it? Good parenting is one answer, but that only goes so far. Are there any other answers?
Yeah, I agree with you in that charging these kids with a crime is a pretty terrible way of dealing with it. I mean, I can see it (the threat of being charged with a crime) working most of the time on some kids in the "Scared Straight"-style, but it really does seem to be overkill. And, of course, if they're actually charged and jailed/registered that is WAY out of line.
That said, these actions can have consequences and, these days, they could turn into long term/permanent consequences. I'd draw a comparison to getting a tattoo on an exposed body part (face, hand, etc.). It's perfectly fine if you know what you're getting into, but teenage behavior generally isn't characterized by its foresight. Especially in instances like photo sharing where the expectation will be that it remains private, but whether or not it actually STAYS private is completely out of your hands. And with the longevity of data on the internet, the consequences can live on for a long time.
My question is simply what would be a good way to inform teens of the consequences of these actions without forcing them to live through the possible mistake. That's the whole point of education after all. Good parenting, obviously, is the best answer, but somehow that doesn't seem sufficient (this is a whole other discussion). Should the government really just be completely hands free in this? Would a school sponsored D.A.R.E. like program work? (probably not). I don't know the answer, but I think it's worthy of some thought.
Possibly a nude image of you floating around your school/the internet forever.
If that's what you want or you don't mind if that happens, fine, more power to you. However, I wonder how many teens doing this are actually thinking through their actions. I know when I was younger I was often caught up in the moment and did things I later regretted...
You can argue that these people need to make their own mistakes so they can learn from them, but the difference now is that these mistakes might hang around permanently (the internet has an odd habit of not letting things die)...
.. what IS the best way to do it? Especially from the position of a district attorney or other government law enforcement agent.
Not defending the prosecutors or anything, but just honestly wondering how make sure the teens understand the consequences of what they're doing...
Mm.. I don't want to sound like a troll, and definitely not to give my support to TFA, but the opponent in your rhetorical argument actually brings up a good point. "But you could be wrong" should always be considered. The current financial crisis came about, in part, because of not enough people with a lot of money thought (or cared...) to ask "but what if I'm/we're/they're wrong?".
Of course I don't mean that the LHC should shut down or any number of risky scientific endeavors should not be undertaken; the benefits almost certainly outweigh the risks. And I certainly have no idea whether the calculations done to show the LHC is safe or unsafe were rigorously done. I'm just pointing out that, hey, doubt and questioning have their place in rigorous science and shouldn't always be brushed away as fear and ignorance by the masses. Even scientists can get caught up in their own enthusiasm for a project.
You're right when you say that suicidal people aren't entirely rational when they think suicide is their best option to get revenge on someone. However the original essay's point is that the successful conviction of Lori Drew now validates this wayward thinking. Lori Drew was punished by Megan's suicide which just reinforces the thoughts some may have that suicide is an effective method of exacting revenge.
I'm currently at the PDC and the way they revealed Secondlight was as part of a number of other MSR presentation in the keynote. They definitely stressed Azure, the various cloud services, and Windows 7 a lot more than Secondlight in particular. Being a slashdotter of course I didn't RTFA so maybe TFA maybe it sound the way you said.
I wonder if you could just stick a Sonicare toothbrush into a glass of wine and get the same result...
Doesn't your argument boil down to the parable of the broken window?
How do they know how old it is anyway?
They knew about quantum tunneling/cosmic rays in 1889?
So you're saying the masses don't know what mass is? (hint: say it out loud).
My grammar is horrible, but is the grammar problem you saw "issue or release" and "mentioning or implying" being in different tenses? I think "mentioning or implying" is in the same tense as "relating to", which would make "mentioning or implying..." modify the "articles, advertising,..." like "relating to..." does and supports the idea that you're only forbidden to use or imply Google's name in marketing or press releases.
Like I said though, my grammar sucks.
I agree whole heartedly with your comment and because of that, I see this legislation failing as a bad thing (sort of). While they shouldn't allow ID to be taught as science in schools, teaching kids that there are some people who disagree with evolution could be useful. Ideally, the "ambiguity" about the correctness of evolution would cause the kids (or let teachers make the kids) to go out and investigate the evidence for themselves. Evolution is much more convincing when you consider the evidence firsthand, instead of relying on people telling you it's right.
Of course, that is a perfect scenario. More likely than not kids will just be lazy and accept the idea that evolution might be wrong.