All of those features would be available in an XML-equivalent binary format, which is what I am advocating. Such a binary format would still be much smaller than equivalent XML, even when compressed.
Yeah, I know how vector graphics work. For any sort of detailed image, though, you're going to have a lot of data. Probably not as much as a raster image, but it can be significant.
Personally, I think the data should be stored in such a format, and then converted to XML only when edited by a human. Thanks for telling me about ASN.1; I'll have to look into it.
With a good enough compression algorithm/method, the XML redundancy wouldn't matter, only give a bigger header size.
And if the compression method were near-perfect, that header would look an awful lot like the DTD, wouldn't it?:)
I doubt there are any general purpose compression algorithms that would manage this, but obviously it would be extremely simple to write a specialized program to do it.
Exactly. And once you write a specialized algorithm for it, you are really just defining your own binary file format.
I agree that human-readable formats are nice in many cases, but sometimes the drawbacks outweigh the benefits of XML. A better solution, IMHO, would be to define a standard way to structure binary formats, and then provide a standard editor which could be used by humans to view and edit these formats. Why send all the text around? It's redundant anyway.
It compresses well, sure. But it won't compress well enough to negate the effect of it being in XML. The simple fact is, there is much more information in an XML file than is necessary to display the image. You can't deny that. And, therefore, it will be much larger, even if compressed.
On the other hand, I just had a cool idea: Why not create a compression algorithm specifically for XML which uses the DTD to remove redundancy? That is, it could completely remove all of the text tag names and such because they are already specified in the DTD. In any particular context, the DTD can tell you exactly what tags are possible, and so each element's tag name could probably be reduced to a byte. Similarily for the attributes. I'm not sure if the DTD specifies whether whitespace can be ignored or not, but if so it could additionally remove the whitespace... in the end, you'd get a pretty efficient binary representation without losing the elegance or readability of XML. Only problem is that any change in the DTD and you'd have to re-compress everything... so... yeah... guess you lose the extensibility to some extent. I don't think it would be too hard to find a solution for that, though... like, adding versioning info to the DTD's or something. It would be worth looking into, if it hasn't been already.
Oh, sure, vector graphics will tend to take less space than raster graphics, depending on the detail level. That's beside the point. It's not debatable that for non-text-based formats, XML will take much, much more space than an equivalent binary format. Those SVG files would all be much smaller than they already are if the format were binary. However, it would then be very difficult to understand the format without a copy of the standard handy. Is that such a big loss? It depends on what the files are used for. In cases like this, I think binary would be appropriate. By gzipping the contents you can reduce the size to a reasonable level, but there's still lots of unnecessary information in there that gzip can't magically remove.
(side note: I don't hate XML. It's a wonderful tool for things like config files, top-level structured data, and anything that is mostly text. It just doesn't make sense for homogeneous binary data or anything that involves very large arrays of simple structures.)
As usual, Microsoft ignores the standards and does its own thing. Why can't they be standards-compliant for once?
Wait a minute...
On a serious note, someone once submitted some art to an open source video game project I run in SVG format. I thought it was pretty neat that I could resize the image without losing visual quality, but I was rather put off by the size. The file just seemed way too big for the data it contained. On a whim, I opened it up in a text editor, and what did I find? DUM DUM DUUUMMMMM.... XML!
Arg! Why!? What's next, raster images in XML? I can see it now...
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
Honestly, I have had unhindered private internet access since before I was 14 (am now 21), and I don't think I turned out that bad. I now run several internet-based projects (four on sourceforge, and two running on a server which I admin myself), have friends all over the world, etc. Porn? Yeah, I looked at porn. I'll admit it. Did it ever do anything to me? Any lasting psychological impacts? I don't think so. I think the women I know would tell you that I'm not any sort of sex-crazed pervert.
So, here's a thought: Maybe it isn't the end of the world if your kids see the internet for what it is. By the time they are teenagers, I think it is time to let them start figuring things out for themselves rather than being sheltered from the world. The internet really isn't that bad anyway. There are certainly worse things they could be doing out on the streets.
Don't forget, BeOS used a microkernel, and we all know how slow it was. It took almost 15 seconds to boot! I couldn't stand it. I remember how I used to play video games on my game boy to keep me entertained while I waited. And don't get me started on how it could only run Quake 2 25%-50% faster than any other OS. I mean, really, it was unplayable at such speeds. No wonder Be went out of business.
Linus says microkernels suck. I think we should all place our blind faith in whatever he says. So, next time someone comes around offering you a shiney new microkernel, remember to just say "no".
Did you read the articles? The second link discussed a watermark for Java programs which generally withstood decompile/recompile attacks as well as obfusication attacks. The whole point of watermark technology is that it is made difficult to remove the watermark without destroying the data.
Before you discount their techniques, you should probably read the papers. I have a sneaking suspiscion that these people, who have spent a great deal of time researching this topic, may know some things you don't.
Stillman has gone whole-hog for radio-frequency technology, which his year-old Enterprise Charter School started using last month to record the time of day students arrive in the morning.
In my highschool, teachers took attendance, including noting if the student was late. So, now the teachers don't have to do that, because a device scans all the tags as students enter.
In the next months, he plans to use RFID to track library loans,
You can bet that the library was completely aware of which student had which book at my school. Really, what sort of libraries don't keep track of this info? Otherwise, you could just keep the damned book and no one would ever know. I can see how it would make things easier if the librarian could just scan your tag rather than take down your name.
disciplinary records,
When students in my school were "written up" for misbehavior, this included writing down their names. So now, I guess, the hall monitors can just scan their tags instead.
cafeteria purchases
I suppose these weren't recorded for me when I paid in cash. Many students, though, used prepaid accounts, for which of course you needed identification. Now they can just use the tags.
and visits to the nurse's office.
Yep, I'm pretty my name was recorded when I went to the nurse's office.
Eventually he'd like to expand the system to track students' punctuality (or lack thereof) for every class
See item 1.
and to verify the time they get on and off school buses.
I suppose my bus driver didn't always keep track of when I got on and off the bus, but I don't see the problem here. Many school busses have security cameras on them which have the same effect. Why would you not want your school to know when you get on or off a bus?
So, where is the invasion of privacy? How is any of this any different than it ever was? RFID's don't allow anyone to track your exact position as you move around the world. They are just tags which can be scanned like security cards, but easier.
Really, I wonder about people who look at this and say "OH MY GOD THEY'RE TRACKING PEOPLE!" without thinking about it.
I know you're joking, but for those who don't know already: iTunes on Windows can be made to play OGGs. Just install this open source OGG component for Quicktime. Download the Windows version and stick it in your system32\QuickTime directory. (The component is a little buggy in that it will pause for a few seconds before it starts playing an OGG, but it DOES play.)
I'd imagine the construction of rockets which could be used to transport ICBM's would be something worth keeping secret, but maybe that's just me. And that's just one example.
Try this one. Regardless, simply touching the case -- whether it is plugged in or not -- is usually adaquate. I've assembled dozens of computers using that technique and never had a problem.
Also, the | operator works on the DOS command line (and has worked since before Windows was created). So, where did you get the idea that Microsoft doesn't support pipes?
Yeah, sorry, I got a little carried away there. I have no problem with the majority of christians who are reasonable people and don't try to impose their beliefs on me. And I respect the teachings of Jesus Christ, I just don't buy the "magical" stuff. But that's a different story.
Sure, it would be nice if we had some way to allow parents to set up their computers so that they can't access porn. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it sounds. It scares me to think that I could be sent to jail if I were to put a picture on a personal web site that someone else judged to be pornographic. I don't think the law should have anything to do with this. I think it should be up to private software companies to develop solutions to this problem ("censorware").
As far as the ACLU goes, I am glad that they are there simply because it could be me needing their defense someday. I have seen plenty of examples of perfectly reasonable people expressing perfectly reasonable opinions on the web and getting sued over it. For every case that you see where the ACLU is defending some disgusting group like NAMBLA or neo-nazis, there are a hundred cases of them defending normal people who have been sued unreasonably and don't have the money to defend themselves. I also like knowing that someone out there is actively fighting things like the so-called Patriot Act, and other attempts by the government to commit unreasonable invasions of privacy and limitations of our rights. And, I think that the fact that they are willing to defend the rights even of groups they hate (I'm sure no one at the ACLU actually likes NAMBLA) only shows that they are willing to stick to their principles even when it makes them look bad. I can understand why you would believe otherwise, and I guess that's up to you.
Having your speach restricted at work is beside the point; you have every right to express your opinions, and your employer has every right to fire you if you're making the company look bad with those opinions. If your employer is stopping you from writing your opinions on your web site it your own time, that's a problem, but it is apparent that they are not.
Being removed from your talk show because your sponsors don't like what you're saying is also beside the point. Yeah, you're going to have a hard time finding sponsors if you are spouting racist or religious hade speech. Note that Pat Robertson doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping his show, despite all the garbage he spews.
You say the ACLU is evil because it defends left-wing hate groups but not right-wing hade groups? Well I'm not sure, but I do believe they have defended groups like the neo nazis on several occasions. Yes, they'd be right-wing. I know your response to this will probably be to point out that the neo nazis are evil, and obviously I agree, but regardless of what you think of their opinions, they have the right to state them. Remember, once upon a time christian protestants were the ones being persecuted because everyone thought they were evil.
Now, if right-wing christian groups are really so opressed as you seem to think, then why is it that every time I walk out of a baseball game, there's two guys across the street telling me that I am going to be sent to hell if I don't believe in God? Essentially, they are telling me that a benevolent, loving God has created a world where there is no scientific evidence for his existence whatsoever, and yet if I fall for his ruse he will send me into eternal suffering. Frankly, I'd call any such god malevolent. When people tell me crap like that, they are insulting my intelligence. Why aren't such people rounded up and removed? Oh, that's right, freedom of speech. And, again, I would defend their right to be there, even though I despise them. I'm sure the ACLU would defend them as well, but it seems no one is trying to stop them.
Meanwhile you've got your ultra-christian groups who are out there lobbying congress to allow (or even require) the bible to be taught in public schools. How ludicrous is that? When I have kids, I sure as hell don't want them going to a school that teaches them a distorted view of morality and tries to tell them that they can't be good people without believing in a bunch of tall tales about a guy who lived 2000 years ago.
Throughout history, humans have shown a tendancy to accept beliefs regardless of how much sense they make, and to persecute anyone who believes differently from them. As an advanced, civilized nation, it is our responsilibily to make sure that doesn't happen; that people can believe whatever they want without fearing that they are going to be sued or put in jail for it. I know I'm never going to convince you of this. I'm sure at this point you think I must be pure evil just for being athiest (and I take offense to that). But I'm having fun debating regardless.:P
The ACLU makes a point of defending those whos free speech rights are unfairly attacked. 95% of the time, these are going to be groups that most people don't like, simply because people tend to feel like it is OK to censor any opinion which is generally viewed as wrong. It is absolutely not OK. When you make that OK, and start punishing people with different opinions, you soon find yourself in a country where people are afraid to express any view they have which is not generally accepted. As history has plainly shown, this would be very bad for our country.
Meanwhile, right-wing christian groups are generally not despised nearly so much, and so don't have their rights constantly trampled on. Of course, many of them feel free to trample on other people's rights, trying to impose their moral views on the rest of the world.
Now, here is where I could say something like "I think right-wing bible-thumpers should be shut up by law", because I sure as hell don't agree with them, nor do I think anything they say is productive. However, I respect their right to express their opinions, however misguided or offensive they may be.
As for parenting your kids, that's your job. How about, instead of trying to hide the world from your children, you let them see it for what it is, so that they're prepared for it later?
Let's put it this way: I believe that anyone should be allowed to publish absolutely any text they want, as long as it is their own creation. No, you can't say "bomb" on a plane or "fire" in a theater, but that's entirely beside the point. And, obviously, it doesn't give you a free pass to break other laws as part of your "expression". The only example you give that is even remotely relevant is the atomic bomb one... and, I would say, if someone had the knowledge necessary to create an atomic bomb and wanted to publish it, they should have that right. Fortunately it's been kept relatively secret... and, of course, the materials you need to make one aren't exactly easy to come by.
Slashdot Mirror
All of those features would be available in an XML-equivalent binary format, which is what I am advocating. Such a binary format would still be much smaller than equivalent XML, even when compressed.
Personally, I think the data should be stored in such a format, and then converted to XML only when edited by a human. Thanks for telling me about ASN.1; I'll have to look into it.
With a good enough compression algorithm/method, the XML redundancy wouldn't matter, only give a bigger header size.
:)
And if the compression method were near-perfect, that header would look an awful lot like the DTD, wouldn't it?
I doubt there are any general purpose compression algorithms that would manage this, but obviously it would be extremely simple to write a specialized program to do it.
Exactly. And once you write a specialized algorithm for it, you are really just defining your own binary file format.
I agree that human-readable formats are nice in many cases, but sometimes the drawbacks outweigh the benefits of XML. A better solution, IMHO, would be to define a standard way to structure binary formats, and then provide a standard editor which could be used by humans to view and edit these formats. Why send all the text around? It's redundant anyway.
It compresses well, sure. But it won't compress well enough to negate the effect of it being in XML. The simple fact is, there is much more information in an XML file than is necessary to display the image. You can't deny that. And, therefore, it will be much larger, even if compressed.
On the other hand, I just had a cool idea: Why not create a compression algorithm specifically for XML which uses the DTD to remove redundancy? That is, it could completely remove all of the text tag names and such because they are already specified in the DTD. In any particular context, the DTD can tell you exactly what tags are possible, and so each element's tag name could probably be reduced to a byte. Similarily for the attributes. I'm not sure if the DTD specifies whether whitespace can be ignored or not, but if so it could additionally remove the whitespace... in the end, you'd get a pretty efficient binary representation without losing the elegance or readability of XML. Only problem is that any change in the DTD and you'd have to re-compress everything... so... yeah... guess you lose the extensibility to some extent. I don't think it would be too hard to find a solution for that, though... like, adding versioning info to the DTD's or something. It would be worth looking into, if it hasn't been already.
Oh boy, can I patent this now? (just kidding)
Oh, sure, vector graphics will tend to take less space than raster graphics, depending on the detail level. That's beside the point. It's not debatable that for non-text-based formats, XML will take much, much more space than an equivalent binary format. Those SVG files would all be much smaller than they already are if the format were binary. However, it would then be very difficult to understand the format without a copy of the standard handy. Is that such a big loss? It depends on what the files are used for. In cases like this, I think binary would be appropriate. By gzipping the contents you can reduce the size to a reasonable level, but there's still lots of unnecessary information in there that gzip can't magically remove.
(side note: I don't hate XML. It's a wonderful tool for things like config files, top-level structured data, and anything that is mostly text. It just doesn't make sense for homogeneous binary data or anything that involves very large arrays of simple structures.)
As usual, Microsoft ignores the standards and does its own thing. Why can't they be standards-compliant for once?
e l>e l>
...
Wait a minute...
On a serious note, someone once submitted some art to an open source video game project I run in SVG format. I thought it was pretty neat that I could resize the image without losing visual quality, but I was rather put off by the size. The file just seemed way too big for the data it contained. On a whim, I opened it up in a text editor, and what did I find? DUM DUM DUUUMMMMM.... XML!
Arg! Why!? What's next, raster images in XML? I can see it now...
<rasterImage>
<pixel>
<color>
<red type="hexidecimalValue">FF</red>
<green type="hexidecimalValue">FF</red>
<blue type="hexidecimalValue">00</red>
</color>
</pix
<pixel>
<color>
<red type="hexidecimalValue">FF</red>
<green type="hexidecimalValue">80</red>
<blue type="hexidecimalValue">80</red>
</color>
</pix
</rasterImage>
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
Honestly, I have had unhindered private internet access since before I was 14 (am now 21), and I don't think I turned out that bad. I now run several internet-based projects (four on sourceforge, and two running on a server which I admin myself), have friends all over the world, etc. Porn? Yeah, I looked at porn. I'll admit it. Did it ever do anything to me? Any lasting psychological impacts? I don't think so. I think the women I know would tell you that I'm not any sort of sex-crazed pervert.
So, here's a thought: Maybe it isn't the end of the world if your kids see the internet for what it is. By the time they are teenagers, I think it is time to let them start figuring things out for themselves rather than being sheltered from the world. The internet really isn't that bad anyway. There are certainly worse things they could be doing out on the streets.
That's the server edition, moron. Do you have any idea what Win2k3 Server costs? Much, much more.
Meanwhile, OSX 10.3 goes for $129.
Yes, and apparently he did porn films in the 80's.
Dude, hell froze over weeks ago. This is just an after-shock. Didn't you see the iTunes announcement?
Don't forget, BeOS used a microkernel, and we all know how slow it was. It took almost 15 seconds to boot! I couldn't stand it. I remember how I used to play video games on my game boy to keep me entertained while I waited. And don't get me started on how it could only run Quake 2 25%-50% faster than any other OS. I mean, really, it was unplayable at such speeds. No wonder Be went out of business.
Linus says microkernels suck. I think we should all place our blind faith in whatever he says. So, next time someone comes around offering you a shiney new microkernel, remember to just say "no".
Did you read the articles? The second link discussed a watermark for Java programs which generally withstood decompile/recompile attacks as well as obfusication attacks. The whole point of watermark technology is that it is made difficult to remove the watermark without destroying the data.
Before you discount their techniques, you should probably read the papers. I have a sneaking suspiscion that these people, who have spent a great deal of time researching this topic, may know some things you don't.
From the article:
Stillman has gone whole-hog for radio-frequency technology, which his year-old Enterprise Charter School started using last month to record the time of day students arrive in the morning.
In my highschool, teachers took attendance, including noting if the student was late. So, now the teachers don't have to do that, because a device scans all the tags as students enter.
In the next months, he plans to use RFID to track library loans,
You can bet that the library was completely aware of which student had which book at my school. Really, what sort of libraries don't keep track of this info? Otherwise, you could just keep the damned book and no one would ever know. I can see how it would make things easier if the librarian could just scan your tag rather than take down your name.
disciplinary records,
When students in my school were "written up" for misbehavior, this included writing down their names. So now, I guess, the hall monitors can just scan their tags instead.
cafeteria purchases
I suppose these weren't recorded for me when I paid in cash. Many students, though, used prepaid accounts, for which of course you needed identification. Now they can just use the tags.
and visits to the nurse's office.
Yep, I'm pretty my name was recorded when I went to the nurse's office.
Eventually he'd like to expand the system to track students' punctuality (or lack thereof) for every class
See item 1.
and to verify the time they get on and off school buses.
I suppose my bus driver didn't always keep track of when I got on and off the bus, but I don't see the problem here. Many school busses have security cameras on them which have the same effect. Why would you not want your school to know when you get on or off a bus?
So, where is the invasion of privacy? How is any of this any different than it ever was? RFID's don't allow anyone to track your exact position as you move around the world. They are just tags which can be scanned like security cards, but easier.
Really, I wonder about people who look at this and say "OH MY GOD THEY'RE TRACKING PEOPLE!" without thinking about it.
(Please, no slippery slope crap.)
I know you're joking, but for those who don't know already: iTunes on Windows can be made to play OGGs. Just install this open source OGG component for Quicktime. Download the Windows version and stick it in your system32\QuickTime directory. (The component is a little buggy in that it will pause for a few seconds before it starts playing an OGG, but it DOES play.)
I'd imagine the construction of rockets which could be used to transport ICBM's would be something worth keeping secret, but maybe that's just me. And that's just one example.
Try this one. Regardless, simply touching the case -- whether it is plugged in or not -- is usually adaquate. I've assembled dozens of computers using that technique and never had a problem.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
I'm not exactly a Windows fan, but this joke would be funnier if it had any basis in reality. Win32 Platform SDK says:
pipe()
CreatePipe()
CreateNamedPipe()
Also, the | operator works on the DOS command line (and has worked since before Windows was created). So, where did you get the idea that Microsoft doesn't support pipes?
Yeah, sorry, I got a little carried away there. I have no problem with the majority of christians who are reasonable people and don't try to impose their beliefs on me. And I respect the teachings of Jesus Christ, I just don't buy the "magical" stuff. But that's a different story.
Sure, it would be nice if we had some way to allow parents to set up their computers so that they can't access porn. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it sounds. It scares me to think that I could be sent to jail if I were to put a picture on a personal web site that someone else judged to be pornographic. I don't think the law should have anything to do with this. I think it should be up to private software companies to develop solutions to this problem ("censorware").
As far as the ACLU goes, I am glad that they are there simply because it could be me needing their defense someday. I have seen plenty of examples of perfectly reasonable people expressing perfectly reasonable opinions on the web and getting sued over it. For every case that you see where the ACLU is defending some disgusting group like NAMBLA or neo-nazis, there are a hundred cases of them defending normal people who have been sued unreasonably and don't have the money to defend themselves. I also like knowing that someone out there is actively fighting things like the so-called Patriot Act, and other attempts by the government to commit unreasonable invasions of privacy and limitations of our rights. And, I think that the fact that they are willing to defend the rights even of groups they hate (I'm sure no one at the ACLU actually likes NAMBLA) only shows that they are willing to stick to their principles even when it makes them look bad. I can understand why you would believe otherwise, and I guess that's up to you.
Having your speach restricted at work is beside the point; you have every right to express your opinions, and your employer has every right to fire you if you're making the company look bad with those opinions. If your employer is stopping you from writing your opinions on your web site it your own time, that's a problem, but it is apparent that they are not.
:P
Being removed from your talk show because your sponsors don't like what you're saying is also beside the point. Yeah, you're going to have a hard time finding sponsors if you are spouting racist or religious hade speech. Note that Pat Robertson doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping his show, despite all the garbage he spews.
You say the ACLU is evil because it defends left-wing hate groups but not right-wing hade groups? Well I'm not sure, but I do believe they have defended groups like the neo nazis on several occasions. Yes, they'd be right-wing. I know your response to this will probably be to point out that the neo nazis are evil, and obviously I agree, but regardless of what you think of their opinions, they have the right to state them. Remember, once upon a time christian protestants were the ones being persecuted because everyone thought they were evil.
Now, if right-wing christian groups are really so opressed as you seem to think, then why is it that every time I walk out of a baseball game, there's two guys across the street telling me that I am going to be sent to hell if I don't believe in God? Essentially, they are telling me that a benevolent, loving God has created a world where there is no scientific evidence for his existence whatsoever, and yet if I fall for his ruse he will send me into eternal suffering. Frankly, I'd call any such god malevolent. When people tell me crap like that, they are insulting my intelligence. Why aren't such people rounded up and removed? Oh, that's right, freedom of speech. And, again, I would defend their right to be there, even though I despise them. I'm sure the ACLU would defend them as well, but it seems no one is trying to stop them.
Meanwhile you've got your ultra-christian groups who are out there lobbying congress to allow (or even require) the bible to be taught in public schools. How ludicrous is that? When I have kids, I sure as hell don't want them going to a school that teaches them a distorted view of morality and tries to tell them that they can't be good people without believing in a bunch of tall tales about a guy who lived 2000 years ago.
Throughout history, humans have shown a tendancy to accept beliefs regardless of how much sense they make, and to persecute anyone who believes differently from them. As an advanced, civilized nation, it is our responsilibily to make sure that doesn't happen; that people can believe whatever they want without fearing that they are going to be sued or put in jail for it. I know I'm never going to convince you of this. I'm sure at this point you think I must be pure evil just for being athiest (and I take offense to that). But I'm having fun debating regardless.
The ACLU makes a point of defending those whos free speech rights are unfairly attacked. 95% of the time, these are going to be groups that most people don't like, simply because people tend to feel like it is OK to censor any opinion which is generally viewed as wrong. It is absolutely not OK. When you make that OK, and start punishing people with different opinions, you soon find yourself in a country where people are afraid to express any view they have which is not generally accepted. As history has plainly shown, this would be very bad for our country.
Meanwhile, right-wing christian groups are generally not despised nearly so much, and so don't have their rights constantly trampled on. Of course, many of them feel free to trample on other people's rights, trying to impose their moral views on the rest of the world.
Now, here is where I could say something like "I think right-wing bible-thumpers should be shut up by law", because I sure as hell don't agree with them, nor do I think anything they say is productive. However, I respect their right to express their opinions, however misguided or offensive they may be.
As for parenting your kids, that's your job. How about, instead of trying to hide the world from your children, you let them see it for what it is, so that they're prepared for it later?
Let's put it this way: I believe that anyone should be allowed to publish absolutely any text they want, as long as it is their own creation. No, you can't say "bomb" on a plane or "fire" in a theater, but that's entirely beside the point. And, obviously, it doesn't give you a free pass to break other laws as part of your "expression". The only example you give that is even remotely relevant is the atomic bomb one... and, I would say, if someone had the knowledge necessary to create an atomic bomb and wanted to publish it, they should have that right. Fortunately it's been kept relatively secret... and, of course, the materials you need to make one aren't exactly easy to come by.