Williamfoster63

f you can't even be bothered to clarify your terms, (i.e i would hit a woman if she was coming at me unprovoked with a knife), you look an idiot

Rather than coming up with ways to justify hitting women, wouldn't it be easier and more sensible to simply say that hitting people, in general, is no good?

Given how high those limits would have to be, I'm not sure how practical it actually would be, but you could technically do it (but don't write about your scheme online, since, you know, you're not supposed to be defrauding credit card companies).

especially where you're running

Bay Ridge is actually quite conservative. There's a reason Marty Golden has been the State Senator there since 2003.

Depends on where you live. NYC has all of it up on ACRIS (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/jump/acris.shtml).

From their website, "The Red Hood Project" seeks:

Age verification of child users (I can see the utility of this, but how on Earth is this possible? Nobody puts their real age in those age verification prompts)

Disabled location and web browser tracking (So kids log into incognito mode? I don't think this means disabled for everyone)

Default privacy settings for children and youth

Firewall protection for children’s data online

I am left wondering, what is the goal? To keep kids away from the darker crevices of the internet? I suppose blocking all but the most innocuous sites would do it, but that's a solution already available to parents. Is it preventing predators from stalking kids online? What are these kids doing online that puts them in these positions where predators will come after them in the real world?

I don't have kids, so I really don't know what kind of fears parents have of the internet, but I don't understand what this new solution has over the current solutions available? Maybe someone can explain to me what the problem is that is trying to be solved.