Slashdot Log In
Lightning Crashes, An Old Freedom Dies (Updated)
from the vs.-lightning-bug dept.
I'm not a public speaker, and I hadn't stood before an audience in quite a while. The feedback I'd gotten from my first presentation on SurfWatch was that I talked too fast and too much. At the time, I'd wanted to communicate as much as possible of what the Censorware Project had learned over the last two years, in a half hour. An impossible task, and I shouldn't have tried.
But I felt I could do better, so I wanted to try again. That's the effort that ended up becoming Thursday's presentation.
My main problem is that the subject is complicated. Many computer professionals have this problem when trying to communicate computer-related ideas to nonprofessionals. If these things were simple, we wouldn't need computers. But trying to get across too much information in a half hour didn't work.
The other thing I'd tried that didn't work was borrowing the computers of the Family Research Council. The FRC had two computers set up, one filtered and one not, run by two volunteers. I'd thought it would be a clever coup to use their own computers to show their software failing.
But it wasn't impressive for one reason: when I showed an innocent Web site blocked, all that showed up was the "Blocked by SurfWatch" screen. I was using the FRC's filtered computer and their other one was turned off. Nobody had any idea that valuable information was being blocked, except me.
Kind of the way the censorship works in the library. But not an effective demo.
For my second go at it, I rented a ballroom in downtown Holland, advertised it in the paper, and brought my own computers. I purchased SurfWatch and installed it on one of them. And I spent some time thinking over which issues were important enough to hit and which were just too technical to mention.
Setting up was great fun, if by "fun" I mean wrestling with a network under a deadline. The 10baseT jack didn't seem to be connected, one of the extension cords didn't work, a projector wouldn't turn on, and finally I was faced with Windows' endless dialog boxes of options just to use DHCP. But it all worked out with time to spare.
I began my talk by explaining out why I was there and why blocking software was wrong. Currently, Holland's opposition to the software is being waged largely on political issues: chiefly, the fact that three-fourths of library taxpayers cannot vote on the ballot. To many, what the blocking software actually does is a non-issue.
But these are mere procedural concerns. Every community is going to have to face the core problem squarely, sooner or later; it might as well be now. So I began my talk by laying out, from the beginning, my belief that blocking software inherently violates the First Amendment.
After talking about some of the myths put forth in the community's debate, my next step was to display some pornography on the big screens. The local Family Research Council has been trotting out a presentation that focuses on some of the most graphic stuff available on the web: bestiality, fisting, etc. I'd decided to try not offending my audience quite as much. I chose some milder Web pages, mostly softcore, though several of the sites I chose also contained harder material.
And, of course, unlike the Family Research Council's, my demonstration showed the pornography appearing on both screens: filtered and un-.
I think I'll not reveal here which porn sites I showed. I want to see how long SurfWatch goes without finding them. So far it's been about two weeks, but of course revealing them here would get them blocked immediately for PR purposes.
I will say that I chose six sites that all begin with the letter "A". This was to make the point that there is plenty of unblocked pornography - there being 25 other letters in the alphabet. As if to make my point, a Tennessee paper ran that same day a story about a schoolteacher who was fired for accessing over a hundred porn sites - right through the school's "filter."
After all, if the software fails only a tiny fraction of the time, it still allows through - dozens? hundreds? thousands? - of porn sites. How many porn sites does the average person need? What's the point in blocking 99% of it, if the remaining sites are more than enough to keep anyone busy?
The next step in my talk was the flip side: showing protected Web pages unfairly blocked. Finding a plethora of wrongly-blocked pages was easy. SurfWatch uses URL keyword blocking, so, for example, the complete text of the classic book Of Human Bondage is blocked because of "bondage" in the URL. The hard part was narrowing the list down to 10 to demonstrate.
(If you're interested, here are the ten blocked pages I used: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.)
Next, I pointed out that these sorts of errors were not often corrected. What data there is suggests that most errors go unfixed. In our analysis of Web logs in the State of Utah, we found about 300 wrongly blocked sites, of which only six were overridden. Also, in the Family Research Council's $7,000 canned demo, they tried to show how easy it was to fix errors by unblocking The Onion. Since they couldn't even do their prepared site correctly (they left graphics.theonion.com blocked), how could the staff be expected to do the job on real sites, in a busy library?
I explained that the errors I'd found were intrinsic to blocking software, because of the growth of the Web. In my first talk, I spent 10 minutes talking about exponential growth; this time, I just gave the impressive figure that, during just the course of my talk, a million Web pages were created or changed. Much quicker and I'm sure it made the same point.
There seemed to be concern, in Holland, that pornography just "popsup" at any time, for no reason. I debunked that myth by pointing out that typos almost never lead to offensive Web sites. I read this quote from the Supreme Court's ruling on the Communications Decency Act, where they affirmed a lower court's conclusions:
"Communications over the Internet do not 'invade' an individual's home or appear on one's computer screen unbidden. Users seldom encounter content 'by accident.' ... Almost all sexually explicit images are preceded by warnings as to the content. Even the Government's witness ... testified that the 'odds are slim' that a user would come across a sexually explicit site by accident."
All the incidents of "verified pornography" in the Holland press seem to boil down to the same two cases over and over. In the first, a woman was reading Hotmail and, when she was done, closed the browser window. Behind it was porn that another user had left up as a prank.
There are programs that can be run between users' sessions to shut down Netscape and clear its history - my local library is using one with much success - so blocking software isn't necessary to solve this problem. I've explained this to the woman, but she continues to use her incident as an argument for blocking software.
The second incident involved a teenage girl. It seems she was at the library computer and stumbled across naked women purely by accident while doing an innocent search for chocolate chip cookie recipes. Interestingly, she didn't report this to her mother, apparently out of embarrassment, until weeks later. I'd like to speak with her as well but the local pro-filtering groups refuse to put her in touch with me.
I haven't been able to replicate this event, and neither have other people who have tried. And I know a lot about search engines. Now, I'm not saying it didn't happen. Maybe it was a misunderstanding.
What I did in my speech was hold up a $100 bill and offer it to the first person who could show me how it was done. I'll make the same offer to Slashdot readers. Let's see whether this is an urban legend or not. See the bottom of this story for the rules.
I spoke briefly about the legal issues. The Holland area has been hearing suggestions that it will be legally safer to use blocking software. In fact, though the case law is by no means definitive, the experiences of Livermore and Loudoun point toward the opposite conclusion.
Next was the fun part, where I brought up some quotes from the two organizations pushing filters in Holland to illustrate the folly of relying on unaccountable third parties for censorship. In a 1996 legal brief, the Family Research Council had mentioned Cyber Patrol by name as a product that families and libraries "should make use of." But just two years later, in a bulletin called "Filtering Out Decency," they were warning parents away from using the same software.
Why? Because Cyber Patrol had stuck to its guidelines for what constituted hate speech. They had reviewed the American Family Association, the other organization pushing filters in Holland, and found them to be espousing intolerance of homosexuals. The entire AFA site now found itself censored, by the same type of software it had been pushing. In a bulletin called "Filtering Out Morality," the AFA warned parents to think twice before using any blocking software:
"In a secularist culture, both filtering software and federal regulations may well be used to filter out Christianity along with other undesirable elements.
"Another kind of software simply informs parents what sites their children have visited. Instead of making it impossible for children to see certain sites, this approach puts parental discipline at the center. Children, realizing that their parents are looking over their shoulders, are thus taught to internalize the restraints and to develop a conscience of their own.
"As Christians get involved in these debates - before they get filtered altogether - they should keep in mind the warning of the great Puritan poet John Milton ... 'If it come to prohibiting, there is not aught more likely to be prohibited than truth itself.'"
Teaching children to develop a moral conscience of their own? There's a radical idea. Why did it take censorship backfiring before anyone thought of that?
I wrapped things up by talking for a bit about the importance of teaching these moral lessons to children. The children of today are growing up in the 21st century. The Internet will be available to them on every street corner and desk, and mostly unfiltered. What they need is not a temporary and leaky set of blinders strapped on. They need to be given an ethical foundation and the self-reliance to make good decisions about their own lives.
Somewhere in there I called up the AFA's Web site and showed that their discussion about pornography was blocked by SurfWatch as if it were pornography. That got a chuckle from the audience and made the point: it isn't just one product that backfires. The very product that has been pushed in their community blocks the very organization that has spent $35,000 pushing it.
As I wrote in an earlier article, I'm not sure any of this will make any difference to most people. For most, the issue is and will always be pornography: to be against pornography is to support filters.
And the opposition to sexually explicit material is, at heart, an emotional one. It's a primal one. Sex and fear are two of the gut instincts that we humans carry with us from our earliest days.
The day after my talk, the Holland Sentinel carried a powerfulinterview with the man who is behind the city's ballot initiative. IrvBos is the head of the Holland Area Family Association, a branch of the American Family Association.
It seems his aversion to pornography began when he was a boy, in a dramatic incident. At the age of 12, he found a book by the side of the road - a book with stories about "pretty graphic things," a book that the young boy secreted away in his parents' barn.
When "lightning struck the barn, burning it to the ground," it must have been a frightening demonstration of God's power to the guilty child, the child who associated that barn with sneaking behind his parents' back to do evil things, to read evil words.
I think I put together a pretty good presentation Thursday night, but it couldn't have compared to a bolt from the sky striking down a house of evil - like "Sodom and Gomorra," according to Mr.Bos's recollections.
That's hard to top. I can talk about the Internet equivalents of electrons and lightning rods all I want. But I don't think anyone can get through to people who believe this battle to be an epic one, a battle of good and evil. There is something primal there.
We'll see Tuesday night how the vote comes out.
Rules for the $100 offer are as follows. Find a search result URL that shows naked people, for a search on "chocolate chip cookies" or "chocolate chip cookie recipes." I'll accept any variant that an inexperienced Web-surfer might search for. Your result must appear on one of the first five pages of results returned (typically the first 50 results). I'll accept any major search engine. Send me the exact query you used; I will only accept queries I can verify to work as claimed. You aren't allowed to put up a cookie page, submit it, then change its content; to prevent this, you have until 11:59PMEST, Wednesday the 23rd. Only the first person gets the money; order is determined by timestamp of Received: headers at my server. I'll mail you a check or donate it to your favorite charity. This offer is made by me personally, not Slashdot, Andover.net, or VALinux. Notify me at jamie@mccarthy.org.
Update: 02/22 9:30 PM EST by J : I'm getting a lot of submissions that underscore the importance of properly spelling queries. Since I said I'd allow variants, I'll allow these and pick the most reasonable-sounding to give the $100 to. Some of the better ones so far: "chocchipcooky," "chocolateecipe," and the amusing "chocolatecoochie." If you can't beat those, don't bother emailing me.
But what I'm really looking for is a search engine result that looks innocent - that a 16-year-old girl might click on without suspecting pornography at the other end. See the CNN story:
"She typed in 'Chocolate Chip Cookies,' hit the search button and immediately there appeared before her eyes a picture of a nude woman."
The issue is whether pornography appears unexpectedly, from clicking on an innocent-looking link. If no one finds one of those, the other Slashdot authors and I will just decide on the most reasonable-sounding of the other submissions (first entries win ties).
Local standards are trumps (Score:3)
Obscenity is defined by local community standards. The internet has no local standards. So if libraries want to allow access to the internet, they have to find a way to impose local community standards regarding obscenity.
Filtering is clearly not ideal, and the standards it uses are likely stricter than those of any particular community. But until effective alternative forms of control are available, local communities will be willing to give up on access to some (perhaps a great deal of) useful information, in order to block access to obscene material.
And they're right to do so.
A bolt of lightning against reason... (Score:3)
So one person has a bolt of lightning against all the reasoned arguments you can throw at him. You know, the sad thing is, he'll probably win.
I'd like to see even *one* argument about this issue that does not invoke:
These people are BENT on forcing their agenda on others, and they're not going to be happy till we're all good christians being controlled by the big Brother of the fundie thought police.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
ballots? (Score:3)
Glad to hear that your latest attempt at presenting your side of the issue went better than the last one. Did you have the same attendance as the last time? What was the response from the audience?
Much as I disagree with the viewpoint of said library-filterers, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to bring an initiative to the ballot in the same way that you or I can. Make sure you don't appear as closed-minded at the same time you are accusing others of the same thing.
SATIRE:Oh man... (Score:4)
However, I say: is this so bad? I don't like censorship, but if I did, blocking "Babe: Pig in the City" would be a good start. Most kids don't know about porn when they're that young, but we could save them from many other societal ills. If only we had blocked Barney, Pokemon, Nintendo, etc., etc., they would realize that the only purpose for those computers is for their schoolwork. That's it.
And we could have more filters for adults, too, and block their pr0n, their Slashdot, their "Yahoo Pager", and make them work for a living, instead!
Then we could have a constitutional convention, and push for a perfect Communism, and have the government genetically engineer people to only want to do what the government wants them to do, so it wouldn't be so inhumane. And we'd work all day and all night, and we'd collapse occasionally, but we'd be happy and efficient, like ants are...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Excellent story! (Score:3)
The fact that screening software blocked out certain group's anti-homosexual content was illuminating. Censorship is the dog that turns on its master. You cannot use this weapon without turning it on yourself. If we were all more worried about our own development as moral beings and less worried about what others might be doing, we would make greater progress as a moral society.
Re:A bolt of lightning against reason... (Score:3)
Emotionalism and conjecture.
Maybe if kids were exposed to healthy sexuality young, they wouldn't feel the need to have these compulsions as adults.
I know of no documented proof for this, in fact, I believe that there is proof to the opposite. Witness Japan.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
I've been wondering . . . (Score:3)
Do any of the filters even bother with blocking the IP numbers?
Has anyone tried spying on the GET's from people pushing for censorship?
How about getting a statement from ICANN or IETF aut al. saying that those attempting to filter public internet access will be denied all routing?
Isn't there anything to enforce good netizenship, perhaps similar to the UDP (Usenet Death Penalty)?
Monitoring History (Score:3)
My canned response is now something that Jamie mentioned -
"Another kind of software simply informs parents what sites their children have visited. Instead of
making it impossible for children to see certain sites, this approach puts parental discipline at the center. Children, realizing that their parents are looking over their shoulders, are thus taught to internalize the restraints and to develop a conscience of their own."
This
This would have been extremely effective in my childhood as a preventative measure for view "inappropriate" stuff..as it was, my parents new little of my habits, and they weren't
Many of slashdots readerships do have the opportunity to suggest or even promote various things like this as their aunts and uncles or friends' friends' brother asks how to handle this sort of thing. I encourage you all to encourage everyone else to tell them simply to read the history files, or buy software to help you out a bit.
CYA (Score:5)
Got your chocolate chip cookie thing (Score:4)
The fundies will win (for the time being) because (Score:4)
. . . You can always tailor a lie to be exactly what the audience wants to hear. You can't do that with the truth: Lies have the property of still being lies if you change them; the truth isn't like that, and it's very rare that the truth happens by chance to coincide with what people want to believe. As long as human nature doesn't magically change, most people will believe anybody who tells them what they want to hear, and fundies and other professional swine will be able to manipulate people to gain power.
We're stuck with it.
The chocolate chip cookie incident (Score:4)
http://www.loveusea.com/ [loveusa.com]
It seems to me to be a perfectly innocent dating service(???), but perhaps in the mind of the girl who originated the myth the site grew to be a porn site (the reason I'm thinking along these lines is that the girl only told the story weeks after the incident. Research has shown that when children are interviewed as witnesses to a crime or something, usually child-abuse or something cheerful like that, they start to embellish their stories more and more as time and the interviewing go on).
Re:A bolt of lightning against reason... (Score:3)
And the way you protect your family from harmful things is by wishing them away, pretending they aren't there?
IF you think pornography is personally harmful, EDUCATE your children to that effect. There is simply never a case when less information is better than more information.
No, Local standards are not trumps (Score:3)
No, obscenity is defined by statute - state law. Local communities may further define it, but are subject to being overridden by higher courts when reviewed against both statute and the constitution of state and nation.
The internet has no local standards.
(sarcasm)It doesn't? Strange, I could have sworn that there were standards which are local to the internet. I guess anyone can spam without hindrance or counter - and denial of service attacks are acceptable practice as well.(/sarcasm) Seriously, as is being discussed in other articles the internet is (at least) one community, and those communities have standards. It's just that in many cases definition of obscenity isn't an issue - any more than the degradation of the French language simply doesn't matter to most of the world.
Filtering is clearly not ideal, and the standards it uses are likely stricter than those of any particular community. But until effective alternative forms of control are available, local communities will be willing to give up on access to some (perhaps a great deal of) useful information, in order to block access to obscene material.
Sarcasm again to make the point - I know it's not what you mean, but...
The situation is clearly not ideal, and the limits it creates are clearly stricter than those of any particular community. But until effective alternative forms of control are available, local communities will be willing to give up on having some (perhaps none at all) non-white members in their community, in order to block this gang activity.
Ugly, isn't it? See, you're essentially saying, "Some of us are willing to ignore the Constitution of the US to have a limited and possibly false sense of security." And I happen to believe that particular sentiment is wrong.
I'll ask again. Where is the parental responsibility in this? If the parent is concerned about what the child might see, why isn't he or she supervised? You don't let the child wander down the streets freely (I hope). You check to see what they're watching on television (again, I hope). You review what books and magazines the child has checked out from the library. Why is the internet different?
Re:What is the big deal about naked people? (Score:3)
But here in the USA, if a child views pr0n, they become rabid flesh fanatics, fulfilling the plans of Satan as they indulge in evil pleasures and go on to rape and kill.
So, perhaps we just need to import children from other countries?
Re:just shut up... (Score:3)
Imagine you don't want that to happen, so you go to the library, and do a search on homosexuality, and because of the word 'sex' in your search terms, SurfWatch automatically blocks your Google query.
This example is trite and hackneyed, but it seems that people like you, my AC friend, just don't get it and need to have this same argument drilled into your collective heads.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Re:Got your chocolate chip cookie thing (Score:4)
Can I take a provocative stand? (Score:4)
I have been following these posts about this anti-filter in libraries campaign, and I really have to wonder why this is a big deal.
I would like to ask: what are Libraries doing offering Internet access at all? The Internet is not just a way to access information, it is entertainment, it is commerce, it is discussion, it is communication, and it, too, is pornography.
You probably don't require your library to carry porn in print. Nor do you expect it to carry the latest Sears or Victorias Secret catalog (together with a phone to make those 1-800 calls to order), or a bunch of video games, or to show the latest Arnold movie, or to provide a place for you and your friends to party, or even to send your letters too your grandmother. I cannot understand why it should suddenly be expected to offer all these things on the Internet.
I believe in free speach online, in fact I have been doing my best to make concrete efforts towards guaranteeing it. I think that the AFA and co. are a bunch of idiots, but in this issue you are just as wrong.
I think much of the problem comes from libraries not wanting to bother with the digital future, and hoping they can get away with throwing up a few PCs with Internet access. They shouldn't be doing this at all, instead they should be building their own, seperate, network, LibraryNet. LibraryNet should be to the Internet exactly what libraries are to the rest of the world, and should offer quality, but yes, moderated information. LibraryNet should concentrate on getting rare books online in digital form so that even small Libraries can get them, it should concentrate on mirroring web content selectively the way that libraries offer periodicals today, and should provide contact with information specialists, the way you can get human contact with a librarian today.
Censorship sucks. Telling people what they can and can't see is stupid, but we need to look at what we are attacking. If people want to look at free information on the Internet, they are free to get themselves connected in other ways, this is not the libraries responsibility. Shame on you for smearing our crusade with this ridiculous nihility.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Two things here (Score:5)
This could go so far as to automatically generate entire lists of what students have viewed under their login. This of course assumes that accounts are forcibly kept in order and that penalties (IE no access for a (week/month/semester) for passowrd/account trading, sharing, or stealing. While many like my ideas, most seem to look towards what requires less work. Meaning, lets throw in a filtering proxy and be done with it. Any suggestions on furthuring this gaol? Anyone want to write an account system/proxy that monitors and generates reports on induviduals access by login (not IP), that does not cost a screaming fortune, and is easy to implement on a mid-scale basis?
Final accountability should of course rest on the parent. Unfortunately, the parents just want to blame the schools/teachers and take no responsibility. Hence, the schools have to find other places to point fingers: hate internet sites, violent TV ang games, lack of attention form school staff. I just have to know, where the fsck are these parents when their children are snorting coke and making pipe bombs? Where were they when their uncle charlie molested them at age 6? Probably out working to much as some do, or partying to much as others. I will be the first to admit, I run a tight schedule, still go out and have fun occaisionally, but I sitll find time to talk to my kids, play with them, get them on the bus in the morning. It's hard, but it is definately worth it. Not that I want to get on a rant or anything (Dennis Miller Aura).
On to topic too... I can't find any naked chocolate chip cookie women. Unless of course I type and search for either "Chocolate Tit Cookie" or "Chocolate Chip Nookie", but both are unusual typos.
Feel free to flame/freeze/laud/complment/screw/blackmail me anyway you wish.
These views are my own and do not represent my employers brain cell in any way shape or form.
Country NOT founded on religious freedoms (Score:4)
I, a Jew, am often criticized when I laugh at those who insist that the first Amendment means anything other than the right to practice whatever Protestant religion that you choose.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. That was clearly referring to a state religion. Given the mess in England over the centuries as different monarchs had different views, it makes sense that our founders were concerned with a Congress voting a state religion in.
Note: this does NOT in anyway prohibit moral standards based on Christian principles from governing society.
It does, however, prohibit Congress from adopted a Church of America with the President as the head of the Church. While a religious view CAN be used in legislation (notice Blue Laws still in effect, you can't buy liquor in Mass. on Sundays, and most places on Sunday before some time, like 1 PM), you cannot establish a state religion.
What constitutes a state religion?
1. All citizens must be members of and tithe appropriately
2. Fines for failling to attend specific Church services
3. Prohibition of other religious practices
4. Church say in governmental decisions (directly, as in the head of the Church gets a veto over legislation, etc).
There IS a separation of Church and State. It was established by the Supreme Court through Judicial review stemming from the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does NOT create such a system.
To suggest that America, with the motto "In God We Trust," is founded on religious freedoms is a little silly.
More importantly, I doubt that the founders would support that freedom minority relgions like Catholicism (they despised The Church), Judaism, and Islam. The First Amendment was predominantly to prevent a particular Protestant faith from pushing others out.
Alex
Amateur Historian
Re:Wrong Slick (Score:3)
Perhaps it is because of the sexual repression in this country that it is used so prevalently (and obviously effectively) in American media in general and advertising specifically. Deny someone something they need (unless you think sexual desire is an acquired trait) and later you can use it to sell them stuff, or they lose control and become rapists, sluts/whores (like all their favorite screen vixens), stalkers (for their favorite screen vixens), incurably self-conscious, over-stimulated, or some other sexually disfigured (and therefore socially dangerous) being.
Huh, what?
Repression doesn't work. Pressure only builds in active, closed environments. Nobody wants explosions, they hurt.
Moderation in all things, especially sex, and this post, both of which are fun with the right people.
--
Re:CYA (only goes so far...) (Score:3)
So, when was the last time you were at a local library?
And honestly, school and libraries do have a responsibility to at least make a half-assed attempt at adhering to local decency standards. That's why you won't find playboy mags at a library.
Most public libraries I've been to have Playboy and Penthouse. Their patrons demand it. Likely you will need to ask at the desk and hand over your library card or some other ID, but they are there. Sure some of the patrons may be offended, but the good librarians know where the majority of the contributions come from.
On to the main point: I have to side with the anti-sensorship advocates, but I can also understand the need to cover one's ass too. I think it's a shame that people try to make other take the blame for the consequences of their inaction. These days many parents don't teach their kids the morals they want them to adhere to. It may be they don't take the time, or they don't know how. Either way the parents are at fault. The morals a child learns are the ones tought to the child. Now if you want a specific set to be tought to your child, why are't you doing it yourself, and doing it early in their life? If you don't teach your child the morals you want your child to learn, don't come crying to me or anybody else when your child shows up with a different set than what you wanted.
As a side note: This is only from personal experience and conjecture and no scientific research of my own. Most of the people I've known that were provided "explanations as to why X is so" by their parents grew up to be quite similar to their parents. Most of those that were tought with "X is so without explanations as to why" ended up rebelling against their parrents. Children need to be tought the why as well as the base fact. This may mean you need to do some research, but in the end it's worth it. Both you and your child will learn from it. Not filling in the explanation just gives the next one to come along the ability to set X to their value. If you give a child a fact but no explanation, the child files it away. Then another person gives the child fact with explanation that contradicts your fact. The child will look at the two facts, weigh the data and likely choose the one with the explanation to settle on. This is because the child has data to support it. It may not be right, the data could be quite faulty, but there is data there to support it. This is rather simplified, but it gets the base point across. If you want a child to belive something, base it in verifyable facts. Do it any other way and you likely will loose. The cards are stacked against you.
Re:ballots? (Score:3)
I have to agree with the respondent above. Someone once told me "Democracy is more dangerous than fire; fire can't vote itself immune to water."
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -
Re:Dumb, dumb, dumb (Score:3)
_________________
Standards? which ones? (Score:3)
I really don't care what my "community" thinks of various things because I couldn't give a rat's ass about them anyway. People have built a very nice community online with verious forms of entertainment. Many ideas on even our beloved slashdot I tend to disagree with (namely libertarian states rights/hippie protest type of things) however does that mean I should force any and every post that would say offend my little son Timmy Milktoast from reading? No.
The problems with religion and particularly some of the more intollerant religions are quite severe and dramatic. The early Puritans shall we say slightly miffed a great deal of people. I am getting to a point where if I could get one shred of evidence in a god or in some form of actual scientific evidence I might actually bother. Mostly I would say that churches are nothing more than glorified country clubs where appearance and status are the only indicators of "fitting in".
All of these problems are in fact quite embarassing for humans to have to deal with. I wonder if anyone has created a slasdot cult yet?
situations where this is bad (Score:3)
Or, a kid is gay but does not tell his parents because they wouldn't understand. But he visits a web forum or something and then the parents get emailed all of his postings.
Granted, these are exceptions to the rule, but they are not insignificant. Privacy is important to kids. I remember way back when I was a kid (whoo, we're going way back to 1996 here...) there were millions of things I never told my parents just because I didn't feel comfortable telling them. I don't think they would have been mad or anything, I just didn't want them to know. Then again, the library is funded by tax dollars and so their parents are really funding the internet connection, and as long as the kids KNOW their parents will see all the sites they visit then it should be okay. If the kids are really adamant about their privacy they can pay for their own ISP account.
Another option may be to simply put the computers in the middle of the library so that everybody can see them. I personally would never look at porn if anybody could see what I was doing, so maybe that would be motivation enough to stop them from looking at anything they "shouldn't" see. Though this may backfire if the porn viewer is brazen and doesn't care what others think about him -- the other people in the library may get offended, which would be very bad.
But all in all, I think emailing a log of urls to the parents would be a good idea. And if the censorware crowd says "but what if the parents don't read the email and check those sites?" we can counter with "Be responsible for your own fucking kids, idiot!" Granted, this solution is not perfect (if the parent does not have an internet/email account, what is he/she supposed to do?), but it is by far the best one I have heard so far.
Then again, the problem itself is rather ridiculous.
_________________
An ACTUAL porn hit on AltaVista (Score:3)
Altavista.com, Advanced search, "chocolate chip cookie" (with quotes) in the Boolean Query field, page 2 [altavista.com], hit #20 yields soft porn (www.pinupmall.com/Julie.Html [pinupmall.com]) as of Monday 7pm PST. For the record, I am still wholly supportive of the free speech cause; the above is solely an interesting experiment.
Re:A bolt of lightning against reason... (Score:5)
Warning: If you are of anything even remotely resembling a "fundamentalist" mindset, you will probably find this post flame-ish at best. You will probably also want to scroll down, because there is probably very little I could do to show you just HOW you are being led about (even to the point of showing you examples of how your own leaders have outright lied to you). I can only say, in this case, that I feel very sorry for you and that I hope that whatever god or gods may exist may take pity on you--especially since the actions of those who lead you are probably against everything the founders of your religions stood for.
I will also forewarn that I am in a generally pissy mood to begin with tonight, and many of my statements may come out more harshly than I meant them to. My apologies. I've had a bad day, and a bad temper to go along with it (I had to deal with Hellsouth about a problem which has been going on for well-nigh over three years). If things sting too bad, I suggest you take heed of Yshua's example and turn the other cheek and forgive me my tresspasses.
Now that THAT disclaime