I have two questions and this question area does not provide much room...which is extremely irritating!!!!!!!!

1: No Comprende'. I haven't seen any age restrictions on this site, which in some ways is a good thing. There are people here asking questions that need good answers they may not feel comfortable talking to parents or other adults about.

The best thing you can do is teach your kid the rules, internet etiquette, and what they should avoid and why.

2: I LOVE nationalgeographic.com. It's fascinating.

Wikipedia.org

http://animal.discovery.com/

http://www.mbayaq.org/ <- monterey bay aquarium. Awesome, awesome awesome.

Question 1:

Age Restriction

Yahoo! is concerned about the safety and privacy of all its users, particularly children. For this reason, parents of children under the age of 13 who wish to allow their children access to the Service must create a Yahoo! Family Account. When you create a Yahoo! Family Account and add your child to the account, you certify that you are at least 18 years old and that you are the legal guardian of the child/children listed on the Yahoo! Family Account. By adding a child to your Yahoo! Family Account, you also give your child permission to access many of the Services including email, message boards, and instant messaging (among others). Please remember that the Service is designed to appeal to a broad audience. Accordingly, as the legal guardian, it is your responsibility to determine whether any of the Services and/or Content are appropriate for your child.

Question 2:

http://www.wqpt.org/tweens/

http://stepbystepcc.com/tweens.html

These sites have links to "tweens" sites.

I propose that the higher prohibit for contributions be performed away with, and that the highest payouts in retirement nonetheless stay as they're, adjusted for inflation. Social safety isn't a "provide away" application however one who all of us give a contribution to love a financial savings plan, and must be covered from different makes use of by way of the federal government. Do you settle or disagree and why? If you're so concerned approximately it then why not; first placed it again into the individual sector and make to had been no can take out cash from it for his or her possess curiosity, moment pay again each penny you've borrowed from each Social Security and Medicare, 3rd take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over right here however certainly not paid a penny to it, and finally have it the identical for all people; in different phrases executive officers are to perform it and in the event that they desire anything extra they do it on their possess with out the tax payers investment it?Yet, the economic stytem feeding the imbalances had certainly not been particularly modified. They, a organization of students, instructed that every one curiosity charges might be three% or much less for all people to come to be wealthy if favored (that have got to be precise additionally to taces). The first-class fiscal main issue might be, they stated, whilst there have been no curiosity charges. Why no longer do that resolution? The wealthy might nonetheless be wealthy. My query is: whilst soial safety turns into a drawback attached to federal money owed, why no longer paintings with a balanced or acquire price range and spend not more than is available in, as any loved ones has to try for? Why no longer ban all loobying presents in an effort to get legislation that serve the nation? God bless America.