Bryce Moore's Blog, page 243

Poll: What to Eat at Restaurants

(Quick: Name the movie!)



My posts of the last few days have been pretty meaty, so I thought I'd go with some lighter fare today. A simple question: how do you decide what you're going to eat at restaurants?



Me personally? For a while, I always got the same thing. I'd find something I liked at the restaurant, and then I'd order it every time. TGI Fridays? Fajitas. That sort of thing. I did this because why in the world would I want to risk having a bad experience? What if I got something new, and I didn't like it as much as what I'd gotten the time before? I'd have wasted some money. Gotten less bang for my buck.



Somewhere along the way, I flipped my approach. Now I almost always get something new every time. Because maybe the thing I ordered first--and liked--isn't as good as something else on the menu. Every time I order something twice, I miss out on the chance to get something new. Something maybe worse, yes. But maybe better. So I typically ask for recommendations from the waiter, and I almost always go with what they recommend. I'm rarely disappointed.



This is also why I watch and read so many new things all the time, and why I don't re-watch and re-read things. Or at least do so only occasionally.



And so I open the question to you. Which approach do you take at a restaurant? And why?



(Oh--and the movie? My Dinner with Andre. Love that flick.)

I’m Going to Disney World! Read on for Planning-Nerd Details

Yup. It’s Disney time. I’ve been looking for an offer that includes free dining for quite some time, and they just opened one up for October through December. I bought the tickets today. This October, we’re going to be hanging out at the Pop Century Resort.

Because this is me that we’re talking about, I obsessed over the planning of this trip for months and months. The last time we went to Disney was probably around 3 years ago. As you read in my post yesterday, I like trying to recreate childhood experiences I had so I can pass them on to my kids. And one area where it’s actually pretty easy to recreate those experiences is Disney. I went to Disney World a lot as a kid. Often every year. I know the parks really well, and I’m a self-confessed Disney nut. So in addition to visiting family in Utah and Europe, going to Disney World is high on my list of things I want to do regularly.

Sue me.

In any case, wanting to go to Disney and being able to go to Disney are two distinct things. The whole idea of money rears its ugly head, and who wants to worry about that? Me. So I’ve been analyzing the situation from as many sides as possible, looking for ways to shave down on the price. How did I do this? First up, I boiled it down to its basic components: airfare, hotel, Disney tickets, rental car, food. Then I did a preliminary search to figure out what all that would cost me with no discounts or deals.

(I knew things are more expensive in the summer, so we were shooting for the fall. Knowing Disney, I wanted to shoot for a day in the Magic Kingdom, one at Hollywood Studios, one at Animal Kingdom, and 2 at my favorite, EPCOT. I also knew I’d want some rest days. We’ll have a six month old baby, after all. So I thought an 8 night stay would be about right, giving us 5-6 days at the park, 2 days for travel, and 1-2 rest days.)

Airfare: $1000
Hotel: $1000
Disney Tickets: $1250
Car: $400 (including parking and gas)
Food: $750 (eating at the park)
TOTAL: $4400

Rounding up for unforeseen expenses, that meant the trip would be around $4500. Looking at ze finances, that was at least $1k too much.

With more research, it appeared that there were two approaches: one was to stay at Disney, and one was to stay nearby. Staying at Disney would mean there’d be a travel package discount, plus no need to get a rental car and pay for parking–Disney provides that transportation for free. Staying nearby would mean the potential to shop for food at grocery stores, and have cheaper hotels (maybe as low as $30/night–but who knows what you’re actually getting then). It would also mean more of a pain getting to and from the parks.

As I priced the two options out, it became clear that Disney’s done the same research. Their prices inevitably came in around the same as doing it solo with a rental car, etc. And there was less hassle and more fun, so I was leaning heavily toward that. Packaging the trip together through Disney brought the cost down to around $4000. Still too much.

However, Disney periodically offers free dining. What this means is that they give you two free meals and a snack for every night you stay at the hotel. There are two flavors–quick service and table service. Quick service gives you two meals at places where you don’t need reservations. Table service makes one of the meals be at a reservation place. If you stay in a cheap hotel, you can get free quick service. A more expensive hotel gets you the table service option.

Disney message boards said they’d be offering free dining starting today. Turns out they were right. Running the numbers, I could do a value hotel (the cheapest) and get free dining, bringing the total down to $3200. (Airfare had gone up and down in the meantime, but not by much. I did miss one awesome sale that would have given me airfare for $850. But I didn’t want to commit until I had a lock on free dining.)

$3200 met my budget, and so I pulled the trigger.

There were only 3 cheap Disney hotels that had the free dining. All Star Music, All Star Sports, and Pop Century. From what I researched, Pop Century was the best reviewed of the three. It’s bigger, has better food, and better transportation. I would have preferred All Star Movies, but it wasn’t offered. Such is life.

I could have upgraded from quick service to table service, but I decided not to. It would cost $330, and it would mean I still just got 16 meals per person–it’s just that 8 of the meals would be nicer. Well, if I payed for 3 nice meals out of pocket, I’d pay less than $330 extra, and I’d now have 19 meals instead of 16, plus the flexibility of just not paying for the meals if I don’t want to.

So anyway. This is just to say that I’ll be in Florida in late October, and it doesn’t have to cost as much as you think it might. Wanna come play?

I'm Going to Disney World! Read on for Planning-Nerd Details

Yup. It's Disney time. I've been looking for an offer that includes free dining for quite some time, and they just opened one up for October through December. I bought the tickets today. This October, we're going to be hanging out at the Pop Century Resort.



Because this is me that we're talking about, I obsessed over the planning of this trip for months and months. The last time we went to Disney was probably around 3 years ago. As you read in my post yesterday, I like trying to recreate childhood experiences I had so I can pass them on to my kids. And one area where it's actually pretty easy to recreate those experiences is Disney. I went to Disney World a lot as a kid. Often every year. I know the parks really well, and I'm a self-confessed Disney nut. So in addition to visiting family in Utah and Europe, going to Disney World is high on my list of things I want to do regularly.



Sue me.



In any case, wanting to go to Disney and being able to go to Disney are two distinct things. The whole idea of money rears its ugly head, and who wants to worry about that? Me. So I've been analyzing the situation from as many sides as possible, looking for ways to shave down on the price. How did I do this? First up, I boiled it down to its basic components: airfare, hotel, Disney tickets, rental car, food. Then I did a preliminary search to figure out what all that would cost me with no discounts or deals.



(I knew things are more expensive in the summer, so we were shooting for the fall. Knowing Disney, I wanted to shoot for a day in the Magic Kingdom, one at Hollywood Studios, one at Animal Kingdom, and 2 at my favorite, EPCOT. I also knew I'd want some rest days. We'll have a six month old baby, after all. So I thought an 8 night stay would be about right, giving us 5-6 days at the park, 2 days for travel, and 1-2 rest days.)



Airfare: $1000

Hotel: $1000

Disney Tickets: $1250

Car: $400 (including parking and gas)

Food: $750 (eating at the park)

TOTAL: $4400



Rounding up for unforeseen expenses, that meant the trip would be around $4500. Looking at ze finances, that was at least $1k too much.



With more research, it appeared that there were two approaches: one was to stay at Disney, and one was to stay nearby. Staying at Disney would mean there'd be a travel package discount, plus no need to get a rental car and pay for parking--Disney provides that transportation for free. Staying nearby would mean the potential to shop for food at grocery stores, and have cheaper hotels (maybe as low as $30/night--but who knows what you're actually getting then). It would also mean more of a pain getting to and from the parks.



As I priced the two options out, it became clear that Disney's done the same research. Their prices inevitably came in around the same as doing it solo with a rental car, etc. And there was less hassle and more fun, so I was leaning heavily toward that. Packaging the trip together through Disney brought the cost down to around $4000. Still too much.



However, Disney periodically offers free dining. What this means is that they give you two free meals and a snack for every night you stay at the hotel. There are two flavors--quick service and table service. Quick service gives you two meals at places where you don't need reservations. Table service makes one of the meals be at a reservation place. If you stay in a cheap hotel, you can get free quick service. A more expensive hotel gets you the table service option.



Disney message boards said they'd be offering free dining starting today. Turns out they were right. Running the numbers, I could do a value hotel (the cheapest) and get free dining, bringing the total down to $3200. (Airfare had gone up and down in the meantime, but not by much. I did miss one awesome sale that would have given me airfare for $850. But I didn't want to commit until I had a lock on free dining.)



$3200 met my budget, and so I pulled the trigger.



There were only 3 cheap Disney hotels that had the free dining. All Star Music, All Star Sports, and Pop Century. From what I researched, Pop Century was the best reviewed of the three. It's bigger, has better food, and better transportation. I would have preferred All Star Movies, but it wasn't offered. Such is life.



I could have upgraded from quick service to table service, but I decided not to. It would cost $330, and it would mean I still just got 16 meals per person--it's just that 8 of the meals would be nicer. Well, if I payed for 3 nice meals out of pocket, I'd pay less than $330 extra, and I'd now have 19 meals instead of 16, plus the flexibility of just not paying for the meals if I don't want to.



So anyway. This is just to say that I'll be in Florida in late October, and it doesn't have to cost as much as you think it might. Wanna come play?

Raising Children: Recreating Your Childhood

In a bit of a contemplative mood this morning. I'm down in Pennsylvania, spending time with the fam. Growing up, I moved around quite a bit. I was talking to TRC and doing some math, and by the time I was his age, I'd already lived in at least 4 houses in 4 different schools. For quite some time, I never seemed to stay in one place longer than a couple of years. TRC has lived in two places, and been in the same school district for his entire schooling so far.



So when I come down to Pennsylvania, and it's the same house that my parents have been in for the last 22 years, it's a bit of a strange feeling for me--to actually have that many memories about a single place. There are a few other places I have that, of course. But anyway--it just got me thinking.



I think sometimes as a father, I really want my kids to have all the same great experiences I had growing up, with none of the bad ones. I want to pick and choose for them to make their childhood one big bundle of awesome. There's more than a few problems with that quest, obviously. The first is that it's impossible to go back and recreate certain things. Growing up, I'd go to a family cabin in the Utah mountains for a week each year, and all my cousins would come along. There were like 15 or 20 of us--the number changed from year to year. But we'd go up, and we'd have a blast. I'd love for my kids to have that same experience.



Except I live in Maine. My kids' closest cousins are 12 hours away by car, in Maryland. And after them, the closest ones are in San Antonio. And then the other cousins are in Utah. When I was growing up, all of the cousins (minus my family) lived within about a half hour of each other in Utah. So short of me convincing all my brothers and sisters to move to Maine (something I tried already--it didn't work), the only other option would be to fly to meet people someplace in between. That's happened a time or two, but it's just not practical in the long run. You can't count on it from year to year.



So there goes that experience, right?



Right and wrong. Because what I'm coming to see and understand is that everyone has different interactions with the past. What I experience at a place and time may be very different from what someone else experiences at the same place and time. Same place and different time? It's going to be wildly different.



Cases in point: my mission and my college years were flat out awesome. There were a lot of difficult times, of course, but looking back on them, I had a ton of fun. Made friends I'm still in touch with today, and had just a great time. But I talk to people who had very different interactions with those times of their lives. Their mission was incredibly difficult. College was full of trouble. And I just can't relate to it. I can get that they had a different time, but I can't understand how that was possible. Well, I *can*, but it takes some mental effort for me to connect the dots in my head, since it's so different from my own experiences.



What I've come to accept is that everyone's life is different. (I excel at struggling with a subject, only to eventually arrive at obvious conclusions.) My kids couldn't have my childhood if I did everything possible. And they shouldn't. I can't recreate things exactly as I had them. But what I *can* do is help them have awesome experiences of their own. Have my own family traditions that they can then look back on and wish *their* kids could have the same things.



So we come down to Pennsylvania regularly and try to meet up with their Maryland cousins at least once a year. We fly out to Utah to see family. We go to Europe every three years or so. We try to get down to Disney World fairly regularly. And then we have things like Groundhog Day parties, summer fishing expeditions, Christmas traditions, play dates, and more.



I can't recreate the same things I did that I enjoyed as a kid. My kids will interact with and see those things differently. But I can recreate the same sort of environment. Nurture and support. Fun loving. Family councils.



Wait. There is *one* thing I can recreate perfectly. Long car rides stuck in the back seat with nothing to do.



Some things never change.

Maintaining Momentum

It's amazing to me how much momentum matters in writing--at least to me. It doesn't make sense on the surface. You start writing, and you stop when you're done. I can pick a book up and read it, then set it aside for a day or three or five and pick it up and continue reading it without any trouble. Why shouldn't the same be true with an artistic endeavor?



But in practice, if I skip out on even a day of writing, then getting back into that groove is a difficult task. Other things seem more appealing--like doing the laundry, or taking the dog for a walk. And when you're on vacation? There are even more things that you feel like you should be doing, or would prefer to be doing.



I stick to my writing goals, because that's what moves me forward. But there are days when it's definitely harder than others.



And then there are overarching projects. I was in the middle of a revision of GET CUPID when I set it aside to work on a more important revision of THE MEMORY THIEF. I'm now literally in the middle of that revision, and there's a good chance I'm going to set it aside to work on a potentially more-more important revision of TARNHELM.



Up until I got published, the only momentum I had to worry about was my daily writing quota. It was making sure I put the time in on whatever I was working on at the moment. And I would work on that until it was "finished," at which point I'd turn my attention elsewhere. It's different now. I can't work on something and then set it aside and just be done with it. The goals have changed. I'd really like to get another book published and out there for readers, and so projects have to have different priorities. GET CUPID was going to take more work than THE MEMORY THIEF to get it in shape to be submitted to editors, so it took a back seat. And I'm getting some signs of interest on TARNHELM from editors--and selling a book trumps getting one ready for submission, so that would move to the front of the line, too.



Which is all fine in theory, but I know what a pain it can be to plow through a revision, and how easy it is to lose that lovely momentum. Thinking about hitting the brakes on THE MEMORY THIEF so that I can start on TARNHELM, then finishing TARNHELM and picking up on THE MEMORY THIEF, and then finishing that to finally get to the revision of GET CUPID . . .



I can get stressed out.



Which is why that daily writing goal is even more important. Big problems aren't as big when they're boiled down to daily goals.



Anyway. That's where I am right now. And that's all the blog post I have in me today.

Political Snobbery: Just Because You Don't Agree With It, Doesn't Make It Stupid

Denisa and I are still making our way through The West Wing--done with Season 3 now, actually. And yes, I'm still really enjoying the show. But as I've been watching it, a beef I have with modern politics has come into focus. Not like I haven't complained about politics before or anything. But this is a new approach to me disliking it, and so I thought I'd get the thoughts down on virtual paper.



It boils down to this: don't demonize people who disagree with you. In the show, Republicans are often (or almost always) portrayed as knuckle-dragging neanderthals, intent on nothing but stealing money from the poor and being self-centered idiots. The show doesn't always portray them this way. There are some token "reasonable" Republicans. But particularly in the story arc focused on the reelection, Bartlett's Republican competitor is a real weasel.



And that's cheap.



It's cheap in The West Wing, and it's cheap in real life.



Politics, religion, philosophy--all the big idea sort of topics we humans like to debate--they're all much more complex than simple black/white issues. When we make the mistake of assuming the people who disagree with us are stupid or not as cultured, we risk making foolish decisions.



CS Lewis spoke of a concept he referred to as chronological snobbery:

the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also "a period," and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.

To me, chronological snobbery is the idea that people who lived a long time ago were stupid or less enlightened than people who live today. That ideas that are old are somehow less valuable than ideas that are new. That if something has fallen out of favor, it is now worthless. This is, of course, nonsense. Smart people then were just as smart as smart people now. They may not have had computers or indoor plumbing, but they were pretty darn good at thinking.



So let me take that idea of snobbery and extend it to the political realm: political snobbery. Boiling down politics to a right/wrong level. Assuming that the "other side" is stupid/boorish/ignorant/selfish/etc. When we reduce views that don't align with our own, we risk becoming one-sided. Mentally atrophied. If your ideas and opinions aren't strong enough to withstand some really strong arguments, how valuable are those opinions to begin with?



Don't get me wrong: a lot of the rhetoric that Republicans throw around is just infuriatingly obtuse. But so is the tripe Democrats come up with. But that's when they're pandering to proponents of political snobbery. Once we get beyond that--once we realize that people have differing views because there are some compelling reasons that form the foundation of those views--then we can start having real discussion. Real compromise.



As long as we persist in setting up straw men that we can't beat up easily, we're no better than Kramer dominating the dojo.

Bryce's Wondrous Mosquito-B-Gone Itch Remover

I hate bugs. They're one of the main two reasons that summer is my least favorite season. (The other reason being heat. It's a toss up which I loathe more.)



Check that. I guess it's not the bugs I hate so much as the bug bites. Itching nonstop? Yuck, yuck, and double yuck.



Which is why I was happy to find this article on Lifehacker about how to get rid of itching bug bites. The solution? Use a hot spoon and press it against the bite. The itch magically disappears.



Theoretically.



As I've been doing this in practice, I've developed a new approach. Forget hot tap water. I've been using almost boiling water. I heat the spoon in that for few seconds, and then brand myself with the boiling hot spoon.



Hasta la vista, itch.



Of course, this approach also risks giving yourself severe burns, so I guess it's really only recommended for those of you who really really dislike itches.



And that's my helpful hint to you all this fine day. Have a pleasant, itch-free weekend!

The Value of the Unbiased Observer

I've had a website for quite some time now. Since 2007, actually. It's gone through several iterations and updates, but I've always been the person behind the curtain, tweaking what it looked like.



I've never really been happy with it.



The problem lies in the fact that I've always ended up settling for "good enough." Since I'm not a full-time web designer, every hour I spent working on my site was an hour spent not doing something else. Not writing, usually, since my site is an extension of my writing, and I'd typically cut into the time I had budgeted for that area of my life in order to get my site up to snuff.



The natural result was that I'd work on the page until I got it to a point that was the bare minimum of what I needed it to be. At that point, I'd feel too guilty about not writing, and so I'd step away from the site and go back to what I really love doing.



The ironic thing is that I really do like to code. I enjoy getting into the guts of a web page and figuring out what's going on and how to improve things or change things. But when you get down to it, I just have no time. But because I know I *could* do it if I needed to, I also felt bad turning to someone else for help and assistance. Why pay someone else to do something I could do myself, if I only just took the time to do it properly?



Well, when a friend decided to leave his day job to pursue his dream as a full-time musician who did web design on the side, I suddenly had a chance to involve someone else in my website. I could pay him to do it for me, and I'd be benefiting him and me. Win win! I asked him if he'd be willing to take me on as a client, and he was.



The site is still in the refining stages (so don't bother going over there at the moment and expect to see something new), but I have to say I'm really excited to show the revisions to all of you. They're far and away better than anything I've ever done. They look professional.


Because they are.



It makes a huge difference when someone is approaching a site from a professional "I'm getting paid to do this" point of view. It makes another big difference when that person has nothing at stake in the final product other than the look and design of it all. My friend has been able to study the usability of the site--figure out what's working, what needs to be there, what needs to go. And he's taken the time to go beyond the bare minimum--even getting it to the "good" level, and then raising it to the "great."



Because he's taking the time and effort to do the site the way it should be done, I'll be able to incorporate my blog onto my website at long last. There'll be a streamlined, easy to follow organization for finding information, books, reviews--you name it. The graphics look good.



My friend has no favorite parts of the website. No projects he feels naturally inclined to promote more than others. No pieces of the site that he's grown attached to. It's been awesome to be able to turn to him on matters of style choice and content decisions. Better yet, he's not an author. This means he's been able to look at the site from a user standpoint, critiquing other author sites we've found and picking and choosing what works best.



Part of me naturally compares this to the steps I'd want to go through if I started self-publishing my books. I wouldn't want to go it alone. I'd want to hire someone else--an unbiased observer--to make sure it all looked good and worked well. It really makes a huge difference.



In the meantime, I'm really looking forward to being able to share the new site with you in the near future. Keep an eye out for it. And if any of you are looking for an excellent up and coming web designer who's got mad WordPress and design skills, drop me a line and I'll get you in touch with him. Better do it early--I have a feeling his slate's going to fill up fast.

A General Thought: Could EBooks be the Segways of the Literary World?

I remember when the Segway was first announced. A self-balancing, two wheeled vehicle of awesome. It was so cool. It was going to revolutionize the way people walked. The way cities were built. The way public transportation was handled. The sky was the limit, and everyone was going to want one of these puppies.



Bit by bit, the Segway lost some of its cool factor. It was expensive. It became something people might try out on a vacation, for the novelty. And then it fell off even more. People might use them for work purposes, but to casually have one sitting around to use for day to day transportation?



What sort of a person would do that?



And then, television showed us what sort of person would do that:

Gob Bluth





And that's where the Segway is today, more or less. A run-on gag that isn't taken seriously, despite the fact that it really is cool when you take a minute to step back and think about it. But in the end, it does something that people figured out just isn't necessary. Walking works better for most cases, and it's better for you.



Are ebooks going to be like the Segway?



I'm not trying to say they're going to become irrelevant and a joke, but the explosion that is the ebook phenomenon seems to be slowing down. Growth went from 165% in 2010 to 117% in 2011 to 41% last year. (See here.) And no matter which way you massage those numbers--taking into account self-published book sales or the like--the slowing of the ebook movement seems to be clear.



And so I ask it--are ebooks going to be like the Segway?



Here's the thing. I'm a techie. I love me some technology. I'm in front of computer screens all day long. And I enjoy ebooks, but the experience of a physical book really is different. When I'm writing and editing what I've written, I print the book out, even though it's more expensive and (arguably) wastes paper. Why do I do it?



Because it works better.



It's easier to mark up. It can get wet. I don't have to worry about it crashing, or running out of battery. It's just plain better.



I'm not trying to say ebooks are bad at what they do. There are some significant advantages they have over print. They're lighter. They can be read at night. They're easy to buy. But like it or not, the experience is different.



Could it be possible that this isn't a case of CDs vs. MP3s, and that it's more Analog vs. Digital? Vinyl records present something different than MP3s. There's a place for both of them at the table, it seems. Could ebooks be the same? Is it crazy to think that all this talk about ebooks slaying print media is setting up a battle that will never be played out?



I don't think it is. In fact, the more I think about it, the more potential I see for a future that exists with both print and ebooks happily coexisting. And if you don't see that future, watch a few episodes of Hoarders and get back to me.


People like things. They like objects. Digital books aren't objects.



I'm not making a full on prediction of the future. Just pointing out some possibilities. What think you of the matter?

The UK Story I'm REALLY Interested in Today? Porn Bans, not Babies

I get it. A princess had a baby. Great. I'm glad mother and baby are fine, but I just don't care beyond that. Why a royal baby matters these days is beyond me, but if you want to go buy a commemorative cup or something to remember the occasion, go you.



However, I've been following another story since I heard about it yesterday: the UK looks poised to restrict pornography across the country.



Good on you, UK. To me, this is something that's been a long time coming.



Society today has sort of looked at the online cesspool that is internet pornography and just shrugged its shoulders. It's there, it's everywhere, so why bother fighting it? And I understand the logic behind that. It truly is a complex international problem. And yet arguing "It's hard" isn't a good enough reason to just not do anything about it.



When did the right to pornography become sacrosanct?



I understand that it's a free speech issue. One man's porn is another man's art (arguably), and having the government get involved in what can and can't be shown to the public at large is a murky area with some big potential pitfalls. But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. There can be filtered access to the internet, and then ways for adults to get through those filters if they so choose.



I also understand that those filters aren't 100% accurate. Smut will still get through, and innocent material will be filtered by accident. It's a constantly evolving process of refining the filter. But to argue that "it can't be done perfectly, so it shouldn't be done at all" is just plain weak, in my opinion. We have laws against children drinking alcohol. Do the laws work 100% of the time? No. So does that mean we just give up and don't try to have those laws at all? Of course not.



Will such a ban make parents less strict on monitoring internet access of their children? For some parents, sure. But here's the thing, people--right now, a ton of parents don't monitor at all. I can almost guarantee it'll be a net gain of monitoring and filtering for children, and that's a big plus in my book.



Will children get around the ban? I'm sure they'll be able to. It'll likely take all of a day or two for ways of circumventing the ban to be spread online. But again, that only works if the kid is dedicated and set on finding porn online. In which case, no ban would work at all. But there are plenty of children who aren't intent on finding porn who stumble across it by accident. A law and ban like this will help those children immensely.



I get that my views may be old fashioned. But I believe society should do what it can to protect children from harmful influences until the children are old enough to decide for themselves if they want those things in their lives or not. We don't have free cigarette dispensers littered across the country, or open bars in elementary schools. And yet we have free unfiltered internet access across the country, and we think nothing of it.



Don't get me wrong. I don't want to ban the internet. I don't want to put a muzzle on it. But the default setting doesn't need to be set to FULL PORN. Google image search, for examples, defaults to a filter. People can turn the filter off if they so choose. But it should be a conscious choice.



I hope the UK's experiment is successful, and that the approach is adopted by other countries, as well.