I don't follow. How would it make Abbott a hypocrite if he opposes internet filtering?

"Its minimum processor configuration are two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux."

What the fuck kind of grammar is that?

I believe I did provide evidence. Did you read my initial comment?

Thank you for your correction. Using "origin" would have indeed made more sense.

Not to be a nit picker, but I did clearly state that I kept reading in spite of the cringe-inducing opening of the article. I'm not sure why you're calling me unwise because of that. But, your trite network communication metaphors are almost as cringe-inducing as Mr. Spiegel's writing.

You're right, the article is in fact "a stream of information not forced onto [my] consciousness." But it appeared on the Slashdot front page, and when there is something on the front page of Slashdot that annoys us, we speak up.

I fail to understand your generalization that "attack is a primitive response to a stream of information not forced onto your consciousness." To clarify, are you saying that when information is not forced on me, and I am primitive, my response is to attack? I beg your pardon. That makes no sense at all. I hope that English is not your first language; if it is, you are probably a sloppy programmer.

Pardon me if this seems like flamebait to some moderators.

Please point out why I'm wrong, rather than just painting it flamebait. I think I am well justified in taking my position.

I agree with acidfast.

Furthermore, Mr. Spiegel, you are keen to use cliche phrases without even putting in the effort to understand their meaning, or know their correct spelling. This helps you come across as a pompous idiot.

For example: "Queue awkward silence."

The correct spelling is "cue awkward silence." It comes from stage and movie production, where the producer will "cue" actors, lights, or special effects. How does one "queue" awkward silence?

I almost stopped reading there. But I kept going, hoping to find some redeeming value.

It was hard to finish your article, as your tone makes it clear that you are a cocky, holier-than-thou ladder climber. You provoke a regular guy eating his lunch into a pissing match, and then you claim to have said things like, "Everyone is making valid points," in actual conversation. Who does that?

God help any of us who may have to work with you, or even worse, for you. I don't care if you have Asperger's or not. You are a douchebag, period.

I'm pretty sure most kids wander around and are curious about things anyway, whether or not they go to school. Nothing dangerous about it. What supporters of "unschooling" are suggesting is that that is all that kids should have to do.

Classes go from 9am to 3pm in most schools. That leaves plenty of time after school and during weekends for wandering around, acquiring knowledge, and "being dangerous" as you call it. I guess my question is, why go to the extreme of "unschooling" and let kids do whatever the hell they want, all the time? Or am I missing something?

I understand your point, but I don't see how going to the park with your mom and checking out salamanders (as the kids were doing in that photo in the article) is a faster route to a head full of useful knowledge, wisdom and experience.

I'm not sure why you assume anything about my father being strict. Perhaps you just read a book about conservative/liberal politics, and are keen to apply your new buzzwords?

Anyway, I beg you to show me one kid who would by his/her own accord sit down and learn to read, write, do math, and so on. Most kids would rather play games and colour books all day, which is what "unschooling" is all about.

Sounds like a another way to continue the trend of child-proofing the world, so that "everyone can learn at their own pace." Right. What these people are unable, or unwilling, to recognize is that the world meets nobody half-way. We either work hard at learning how to succeed and survive, or we fail hard.

"Unschooling" is just another way for lazy, stupid parents to coddle their children toward a lifetime of failure, mediocrity and narcissism. In 20 years, when these kids turn out to be useless tools who are unable to work for what they want or even support themselves, they will turn around and blame the government and you and me, for not doing enough to help them. (And no doubt they will do the complaining in a petulant, entitled tone that makes you want to punch them hard in the mouth.) Is this what we, as a society, want?

Yes, let's have more unschooling! Looks like a winning strategy to me.