Slashdot Mirror
Toronto Family Bans All Technology In Their Home Made After 1986
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Mary Am Shah reports in the Toronto Sun that 26-year-old Blair McMillan has banned any technology in his house post-1986, the year he and his girlfriend Morgan were born. They're doing it because their kids – Trey, 5, and Denton, 2 – wouldn't look up from their parents' iPhones and iPads long enough to kick a ball around the backyard. 'That's kind of when it hit me because I'm like, wow, when I was a kid, I lived outside,' says Blair adding that now 'we're parenting our kids the same way we were parented for a year just to see what it's like.' The McMillans do their banking in person instead of online. They develop rolls of film for $20 each instead of Instagramming their sons' antics. They recently traveled across the United States using paper maps and entertaining their screaming kids with coloring books and stickers, passing car after car with TVs embedded in the headrests and content infants seated in the back. Their plan is to continue living like it's 1986 until April 2014. Morgan, who admits she thought her boyfriend was 'crazy,' now devours books to pass the time and only uses a computer at work. 'I remember the day before we started this, I was a wreck and I was like I can't believe I have to delete my Facebook!' Blair originally experienced a form of phantom pain for the first few days after giving up his cellphone. 'The strangest thing without having a cellphone is that I could almost feel my pocket vibrating and I wanted to check my pocket.' Still Morgan says the change has been good for their family's spirit. 'We're just closer, there's more talking,'"
I was fishing with my 4year old today. We both catched a fish. He was more interested in the fish and the worms and the sea than any iPads or other post-1986 crap around.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Can they still use the USENET using an IBM PC Compatible?
I mean an Amiga 1000 was a pretty kick ass bit of kit back then. I beg they hate going on holiday with a sack of tapes for the Walkman though.
They actually have to go to the store and buy porn... instead of finding it for free on the internet.
Other than that, I think this is a great idea.
-hps
If they think that technology is bad for children then they should just become Amish. The truth is that the kids can play with a piece of string and be happy just as much as playing on a computer. If you give them string and a button, they could play inside all day with it. But if you give them the same thing and let them play outside with it, then they're good. Same with computers, they should just put the computers outside and the kids will be outside all the time. Sheesh, some parents don't even know how to be parents anymore.
Its interesting to see some of these people flip out completely instead of taking a moderate approach. Many modern technologies are very useful. When my kids at home ask me a question that I don't know the answer to, most of the time I can look it up on Wikipedia or another site. If my wife is going to the grocery store and I forget to tell her about something I need, I'll just text her and she'll pick it up. When I am picking up a friend or family member from the airport, it is a lot quicker to call them to coordinate the pick up time and stop than doing it the old way. The old way requires that you coordinate everything well in advance and nothing unexpected should happen to thwart your well conceived plans. And the list goes on.
If you don't want your kids using your tablets or phones, don't let them. I have no trouble letting my kids use the tablets and the phones. At the same time I don't let them play on them all day long. If they finish their homework and chores, they get some play time. And if they want to play a game on the tablet during their play time, well what is so wrong with that?
Cute but meaningless in a world of the red queen hypothesis
so why no cable or satellite?
Kind of 20th century Amishes. This is ridiculous since their kids will access anyway 21st century technologies in their friends' houses and at school. They will suffer being put aside from the 21st century society and become technology illettrates. They will probably won't be able to make good careers' choices since they will be forced to think about jobs existing in 1980 which no longer exists or need to be done very differently.
These parents are pretty much stupid and don't do that for the good wealth of their own children but for their own vanity. Shame on them!
Achille Talon
Hop!
there is a MRI at the local hospital and they can insert a tiny thingy into a blood vessel to remove it.
The hospital is not in their home. They can get an MRI. Not to mention MRIs were invented before 1986.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Phew. It means they can still use the original Amiga 1000 from 1985.
Signature intentionally left blank.
At least in theory. According to this PC world article, Can You Do Real Work With the 30-Year-Old IBM 5150? they were able to do basic internet things. But I think that may be bending the spirit of the rules. Also, Contiki was ported to x86.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
I never say stuff like this, but: if they really want to be more like a 1980s family maybe these parents of a 5-year-old and a 2-year-old should be married? ..wait, I just read more of TFA. They moved into their current house BECAUSE it was built in the 1980s? Jesus. The father has a mullet, and so the kids.
Oh come on, this is some kind of trolling lifestyle.
Wait, what?
I thought the US and Canada had calendars with the same denominations. Sure, there's technically an exchange rate, but only businesses along the border really care.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The more kids are raised using their own brains to entertain themselves rather than a gadget, the better.
I too am "like wow", but for a completely different set of reasons.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I was also wondering why the fact the house was built after 1986 has anything to do with their banning of technology. Why the hell would you construct that sentence in that way?
Because thats when XP goes EOL. Then the oldersters who love being obsolete as hip we be soo out of style.
http://saveie6.com/
They let their children go outside? That is irresponsible parenting plain and simple! Don't they know it is dangerous outside?! There are gunmen with bombs and pedophiles on every corner!
Hopefully when children's services gets wind of this they will take this kids away from them and keep the kids safe in a nice small guarded room where they can get their appropriate daily dose of Fox News.
There was a neat BBC series called Electric Dreams that took the home in to account as well.
It well worth a watch.
Required reading for internet skeptics
So they only do cocaine?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
When our kids were around 10 and 12 years old, we started observing a Sabbath.
Sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday: no electric lights, radios, TVs, and--especially--no computers.
We'd never observed a sabbath for any religions reason, but we decided to try this,
partly as an experiment, and partly as an attempt to reclaim our lives from electronic media.
The first time we did it, I expected the kids to go ballistic, but they pretty much rolled with it, and it became a regular part of our household.
It did change our rhythms and activities.
We would read or play (card, board, dice) games in the evening.
People went to sleep earlier.
We kept it up for a year or two.
I can't say exactly why we stopped.
The kids got older; life intervened.
I'm going to to this as well, but I'll wait for my kids to become adolescents first. It's just more fun that way!
Sure, there were a few single moms who had kids out of wedlock, but it was still relatively rare among the whitebread set. I guess that commitment thing only goes so far.
The Canadian calendar has a lot more beavers and moose and such on it. There's probably a picture of the queen somewhere.
At least they still get to use a Commodore 64, and an Amiga :D
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
prior to 1700 because their kids wouldn't stop kicking the ball around the backyard long enough to read the good book.
They're doing it because their kids – Trey, 5, and Denton, 2 – wouldn't look up from their parents' iPhones and iPads long enough to kick a ball around the backyard. 'That's kind of when it hit me because I'm like, wow, when I was a kid, I lived outside,' says Blair adding that now 'we're parenting our kids the same way we were parented for a year just to see what it's like.' The McMillans do their banking in person instead of online.
I had an NES in 1986. My parents had the exact same concerns about my siblings and me playing video games instead of playing outside.
If anything, with mobile devices, now, people *can* go outside and still be connected to whatever they want.
Going to the bank takes away time that could be used to kick the ball around the back yard as well.
If these parents were having trouble getting their kids to go play outside, surely it would have been easier to force the kids to simply go play outside without their ipads than it was to transport their whole family back in time 30 years.
If you are nostalgic for 1986, then just say so. You don't need an incoherent justification to be different. "I thought it would be interesting", is a perfectly legitimate reason to do something.
They recently traveled across the United States using paper maps and entertaining their screaming kids with coloring books and stickers, passing car after car with TVs embedded in the headrests and content infants seated in the back.
Ah yes, back in the Good Old Days everyone knew that the ideal way to travel with kids was to make a big bed in the back of the station wagon and just let 'em all roll around loose.
Then again, Green Tortoise bus lines took that idea to whole new corporate level....
Three Squirrels
Good luck finding a hospital with a functioning circa 1986 MRI and requisite control systems that haven't been updated to with post 1986 technology!
Your other point still stands though.
From the comments on this site, its easy to see that Slashdot has become an idiots paradise.
>"the year he and his girlfriend Morgan were born. They're doing it because their kids"
I guess they banned marriage too? Is that too modern?
And your point is....?
Commodore 64!!
It's even in the title of TFA: "Guelph family lives like it's 1986". Guelph is about 100km/60+mi. west of Toronto so isn't a suburb (it has its own university among other things.)
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
No one sells the old tech? Guess you've not heard of "Lodge" Cast Iron cookware. It's unchanged for over 100 years (I think that the company began before 1900).
Inproved insulation is a god damn joke right? Homes are still insulated everyday with fiberglass/rockwool/celulose blown into the walls and rolls in the cielings. As to insulated windows? A good set of triple pane windows with wood frames and sashes are damn near as effective as High-E glass with argon filling because wood has a higher thermal resistance then the god damn Aluminum and Vinyl shit used for them.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
So, does this family use an average "PC clone" (e.g. the crappy and incompatible AT&T 6300) from the era, which would be a turbo XT with CGA graphics, or do they splurge and run the best 386 Compaq Deskpro with EGA graphics that they could find? (Of course, both computers now cost the same on the secondary market, while the Deskpro would have cost 10x as much as the XT in 1986...)
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Human Beings will soon be telepathic. Those who don't have post 1986 technology will be proven to lag since they talk, walk, and run too much.
Actually they would have it harder trying to live an 80s lifestyle now than in the 80s. For example, at one time there was a pay phone on every corner, now they're all gone. So it was much easier to communicate when you weren't at home then than now if you don't have a cell phone.
Better known as 318230.
In the obligatory manner of a MMO, I mean, since you're quitting post-1986 tech... can I have your stuff?
The parents are well intentioned but it might actually hinder their children's growth and development. We live in a digital, connected, and networked world - people who do not interface well with technology are often left behind. A ban is a little bit extreme. Instead, teach them the joys of the outdoor world and life beyond technology. Technology and living a health, balanced life are not mutually exclusive. I remember when my parents banned TV when The Simpsons first started. My brother and I were cast into the veritable social stone age.
They will not be able to assimilate into society when its time to leave the nest. Will hinder their job and education prospects too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There was a neat BBC series called Electric Dreams that took the home in to account as well.
It well worth a watch.
Ah, I remember that show. I caught it while working the night shift at a supply depot on Camp Bastion a few years back. Oddly enough, my family still had quite a few of the things from the 70s at home at the time. Things that were around as I grew up (I was born in '89).
Household appliances lasting for 35-40 years is pretty good going by any standard. Sadly, many of the things that replaced the old 70's stuff simply hasn't lasted. The washing machine we bought to replace the 40 old twin tub? That lasted 1 year and 1 day to the day. 1 day out of warranty and *pop* it died.
3 weeks have passed and we're still trying to get the damn thing sorted! Apparently, the manufacturer (Hoover) doesn't even make the parts anymore! In the meantime, we've had to cope with handwashing everything. I'm sure the old man deliberately puts skid marks in his underwear whenever it's my turn to do the laundry.... :/
We had home cable TV (Manhattan Cable) in 1980. And I got my first email address when I got into Polytechnic University in 1983.
If memory serves, at that point we had a semi-custom Z80 (actually it was a three processor system) S-100 bus based system running TurboDOS (at a blazing 8MHz per processor), an 8086+8087 off on daughter box connected to the main Z80 processor (running MS-DOS 1.x, for some value of x that I forget) fronted by a televido terminal with a switch (so I could speak to any of the Z80's directly, the 8086/7 was only available via software from the lead Z80) with a pair of Epson MX-80s being tortured into destruction (typesetting math documents using "Fancy Font" which was essentially a troff style derivative) and a MacPlus with a LaswerWriter.
I'm not sure how using those things would be better than an iPad for a child. Just the raw metal bits on the S-100 system (not inherent, just my suboptimal metalworking skills) makes me cringe to think of it as a child's toy. Oh, and the DecWriterII that we used for printing labels. Heavy enough to cause serious damage if toppled...
We did have a variety of language processors (but who really wants to teach a 2 year old how to program in Pascal, Fortran (any dialect, but especially the mutant that was Microsoft's ... until we got Lahey's much better product). Indeed, JRT systems Pascal (the first $29.95 compiler I found) computed x*0.0 !=0.0*x (one returned 0, one x). So it wouldn't even be a good tool for teaching math (however, a great tool for teaching the proper distrust of blindly assuming computers are correct).
OK, not everyone programmed up Kalman filtering software at home and wrote memos and reports. But the technology was there, and affordable if you compared it with, say, renting all the time on a Univac (or CDC, no one who had a choice picked an IBM 360 family for its numerics, but we did have clients who had them, so the code had to be portable to those platforms as well ...UTS on an Amdahl anyone?).
Personally, I prefer to have my kids playing with the iPad than, say, power tools.
...it's not normal to travel with paper maps?
They're living in 1986? The rest of us are living in 1984 and seem to be pretty accepting of it.
but even now that I'm 27 I still don't like going into my parents bedroom without telling them.
...when you started locking them up in their "rooms" on second offense?
And do you use a modern device like a taser or is a stick enough to "persuade" them?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Nonsense. He's teaching his children a valuable lesson.
Today's young adults need help crossing the street when they go to college because they can't lift their heads - the university in my town has crossing guards. They bring their parents to their job interviews and can't get outside unless it's an organized event or from an online meetup.
Technology is a great thing but in many situations it's a solution looking for a problem.
Lot's of people think that marriage is important and worthwhile for reasons completely irrelevant to your pitifully naive play-pretend analysis.
Things like "commitment", for example, are awful important to people in "any personal relationship".
The popularity of marriage does not in any way indicate that we're losing our right and freedoms. It's not the governments fault that the biggest commitment you've ever made to a "relationship" is deciding to pay by the minute or by the hour.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Shouldn't the headline read "... bans all technology made after 1986 from their home."? At first read, I thought they were banning ALL technology from their 28 year old home.
It's not actually about technology, it's about creating a wholly self-contained and self-sufficient community. If you're too small to have, say, a steel mill, then there are limits to the range of products you can produce.
OK, this reminds me of two things, both involving IBM (International Business Machines). The first: I was in college, and a prof. had bought an IBM computer with a built in floppy drive. One year and one day after the purchase, this thing died. IBM would not touch it. Warranty is gone. The kicker? IBM needed $89 to replace it, but you could buy cheap 'whitebox computer' floppy drives for about $30 at that time. The problem was that they would not connect to the proprietary IBM cables in the computer. NEXT: I work for a large data center with IBM mainframe comptuers. We are printing phone bills, printing 30 tons of paper per month (2x1000 pound skids of paper per day). Paper is coming out of the printer so fast that you need a folding arm and rubber bands with 'fingers' to keep the paper folded and flat. One day one of these rubber bands breaks, and the printer coughs up a code and everything stops. IBM guy comes in to repair and do maintenance. The original set of fingers was supposed to be replaced at 5 million feet of paper. The amount before this thing broke: 5 million and 90 feet. They know when it will break.
On one hand, as a parent, I can sympathize. My boys (10 and 6) at times seem like electronics addicts. They love watching television - by which I mean Netflix over our Roku box - and they love playing games on their Galaxy Tab 2 tablets (which they bought using saved up birthday money). However, on the other hand, if I need them to put the electronics down, there's a very simple and effective technique I employ. It's called TAKING THE ELECTRONICS AWAY!
No, my kids don't like it. Yes, they'll yell and scream about how it's not fair that they need to practice band, read (an actual book), or do something not-electronics-related. This is part of parenting, though. Kids aren't mature enough to think long term. (Plenty of grown ups aren't mature enough for this either, but that's a different discussion.) You need to think long term for them. Yes, it would be fun to do nothing but play games and watch TV 24/7 but then important but boring things like paying bills, grocery shopping, and important household chores wouldn't get done.
On a side note: Personally, I like separating every Saturday and taking that off from using any computer. It started (in my more religious days) as a religious activity but nowadays it's a check on me:
1) overworking - My dad used to work from 5am until he got home at around 6pm... and then he'd work until 10pm. It would be too easy to fall into that pattern myself (either on projects either for my office or my own personal stuff). So being forced to put down the computer is a good thing.
2) drowning in social media - I like using Twitter, Instagram, etc, but it's nice to take a day off so I don't find myself reaching for the phone because I'm wondering what TwitterFriend34 is up to (while ignoring my kids).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
As the parent of a 10 year old and 6 year old, let me say: It doesn't start at puberty. It starts much, MUCH earlier. People always say "terrible two's" but every year has its own "fun" downside. Also its own fun - no sarcastic quotes - upside as well, but that's parenting for you. Any parent who says they never have any problems with their kid is either lying or has blocked out the memories.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Are easily upset...
Reading this reminds me I need to mentally thank my parents every day that they weren't idiots. My brothers and I had an NES growing up, and we couldn't touch it until our parents said we could. We had to play outside, do chores, and do some homework/reading, and our parents then let us play a metered amount of games. We also had a computer when I was 4, which I credit with my familiarity with Unix/Linux file systems, which (surprise) helps tremendously with my current job. We also couldn't touch THAT without their permission. See, my parents didn't substitute avoidance for parenting. They taught me how to deal with technology, and they gave me the tools I needed to help me in school and in work. These parents, all they're doing is taking away 1 year of important development, especially for the 5 year old. At 2, whatever, but at 5, what that kid learns is going to stick with him for the rest of his life, and taking away tech for a year and then reintroducing it is worse than leaving him the tech and teaching him how to use it sparingly, properly, and in moderation. He could be learning to code, or learning self-control. Tech is not going away. It will likely play a huge part of his later schooling and eventual career, and he could be learning an important skill that will help him the rest of his life. Instead, he's learning that it's better to avoid something than learn how to deal with it properly, and he will probably binge on tech once he gets it back in his life. Avoidance is not a substitute from parenting, but it seems like most Americans don't get that, what with the no-sex-ed in school.
The first step is admitting you have a problem, seriously. Child abuse because the kids don't have an iPad? Now you're insulting children who are really abused. There are millions of people in this country right now who function daily without cell phones or even yes the internet.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Sorry, your rephrasing still leaves the sentence ambiguous. It's possible they're banning "Technology Made ... From Their Home".
"Toronto Family Won't Use Post-1986 Technology." Shorter, and includes technology restrictions while driving, not just at home.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I have kids 10 and 12 and many times they would rather play w/ the Lego's rather then the electronic devices...
This is particularly obvious from the date they chose which relates to them, not to anything larger. It isn't like they did some research and then said "We have decided that all the important technology was developed by this date, hence nothing past it." No, rather it was the time when they were born. Basically a "I don't want to give up anything *I* had growing up, but screw anything since then!"
This guy sucks at being a father and rather than going and maybe doing some research (the Internet is helpful there), taking classes, talking to other parents, etc he decided "Nope, I'll just ban new things. That'll do it!"
A complete egocentric move, and one that is likely to have the opposite effect that he wants long term: His kids are going to like him less. In particular because if they are still living in a modern society, well the kids are going to be exposed to the modern things all the time. The kids will see what they are missing and will understand that it is just because daddy is a jackass.
Prude atmosphere of the early 60s? The early 60s was the start of "fuck anything that moves", as contraceptive pills became widely available.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Is this gross exaggeration by the parent? Did this kid never look up from his iPhone or whatever to talk to his parents? I was born in 1986 and I'm a heavy computer user, I dare say I'm better able to socialize in person because of technology. I have things to talk about or I have things to do if I'm uninterested in the coversation(s) happening around me. I fail to see how that's a bad thing. It sounds like this guy needs some lessons on parenting -- I mean we're going from one end of spectrum to the other end. He's just going from extreme to extreme...and it's not that much different than parents who don't vaccinate their kids for ANYTHING because they heard about a bad vaccine.
It seems like to me, he should find a middle ground and regulate his kids technology usage...not knock it out of the house completely.
So that you can look through it when you are preparing to be a jackass and critique someone's spelling to make sure you are right. While catched is not standard modern English usage, it is valid and is seen in certain dialects.
Or you could just, you know, not be a jackass and try to make yourself look smart by attacking the form rather than the message. People fuck up in their written and spoken word all the time, particularly on an informal forum like Slashdot. Attacking that because you don't like the message is stupid. Let it go.
Goes double because you never know, the person making a post may not speak English as their primary, or even secondary, language. The Internet is international. Their understanding of the language may be incorrect and incomplete, but that does not mean that their ideas have less merit.
However, in this case, the joke's on you. Like I said, buy yourself a copy of the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary or Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. You'll find catched in there. It isn't modern usage, I wouldn't teach it in an English class, but it is allowable and correcting someone, particularly someone online, is rather silly.
Cars with TVs were available in 1986. With some effort, a VCR could have been added.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Methinks his wife is the victim to the world's most complicated scheme to get your mate to delete his/her facebook account. :)
:sent using Houdini Network Browser at 300bps:
Kudos, sir! Bravo!
Do you have some evidence to show that "using their own brains to entertain themselves," is the One True Way(tm) to do entertainment, that is better more healthy, etc? Or is just this some BS you've made up?
Also perhaps we should look at some of the older forms of entertainment that society has, and many of which are still in use. Sports would be a good example. Organized and unorganized sports have been and remain a staple in entertainment for humans. So really, how much are you using your brain there, as opposed to something like a computer game? The rules are all laid out, the goals, the objectives. It isn't like Calvinball, everyone has agreed on the rules beforehand, often set down long before hand, and you operate in those. How does that differ from a computer game?
If physical exercise is the argument that's fine, but then none of this "using their own brains," stuff which implies imaginary play. Not that there's anything wrong with imaginary play, but you have to show how it is better than other kinds of play for your argument to stand.
For that matter, how is playing something like Minecraft any different than playing legos? As someone who's done both in their life, I have to say I think it is the same sort of thing. You play with blocks, with loose goals mostly set by your own creativity. If those blocks are physical or virtual makes no real difference, other than in what you like.
I absolutely HATED to go outside and play ball games. Even at the age of 8 I was more interested in reading (we didn't have a computer or a game console). I can't understand parents who freak out when their children do not want to become playground bullies or basketball fanatics. Just make sure that your kids get enough actual excersize and buy them 64Gb iPad if that's what they like.
Few other things they should think about:
1) Maybe going to "kick the ball around" is a little boring? I understand the wish to have kids engage in physical play, it is very important to good health. However that doesn't mean that it can't be interesting. Just kicking a ball around is rather boring and shows a lack of creativity on the part of the adult proposing it. How about spend a little time trying to set up some outdoor activities that are more fun? It isn't even like you have to invent anything, people have been playing outdoors for centuries, you can find out what they've done. Playing in the various treehouses my father built and playing capture the flag with my friends in the woods are some of my fond childhood memories. I would not have been so enamoured had my dad said "Hey let's go out back and kick a ball around. No, we won't do anything other than kick it back and forth, but it is good because it is outside!"
2) Perhaps liking to play with technology isn't a bad thing. I was a real tech-lover as a kid, and still am. When I got a NES that was my favourite toy and my friends and I spent a lot of time playing video games. When I finally got a computer, it was my new favourite toy, largely for games, and still is. To this day I play videogames all the time on my computer. It is my preferred form of entertainment instead of TV. Well my parents did worry that such a thing had no real application to anything that made money. Like good parents they made sure it wasn't all I did, and that I had to do chores, homework, etc before I got to play. However they still thought it was kinda a waste of time...
Well actually, it is why I now have my job, which I like quite a lot and that pays pretty well. I do computer support professionally. The reason is the skills and interest I developed playing with computers as a kid. I learned how they worked, how to deal with them, etc, all in messing with them to play games. That interest stuck with me, and has led to my career. Very little of what I learned in school was of much relevance (really English and other communication related courses more than anything else), nothing I did in University, etc. It was all my hobby that lead to my career, one which I enjoy, am good at, and make a good living doing.
Because I think marriage isn't going to bring down the country or turn us in to mindless slaves to the government?
I liked you conspiracy nuts better when you knew that everyone else thought you were crazy.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Interesting names for Luddites.
"You've ever made"? As in, me? I live with my partner since 32 years and will do so for the rest of our live. We don't need a state certification to be sure of that. Whom are you talking of? Get back to your mother's basement, and off my lawn.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
"Fuck anything that moves" was ever only the lifestyle of very few people; and those lived more in the late 60s than in the early 60s. (I'm old enough to remember this. Are you, too?) And it's not the point that I wanted to make, when I call out US Americans to be prudish.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
I find the responses from the slashdot crowd telling. While a few people expressed some support, most seemed horrified. That's quite comical, and more than a bit disturbing. It tells me that many slashdot readers have a problem with too much technology, in the same sense as some people have a problem with too much alcohol. Those people would be wise to spend more time outdoors surrounded by greenery, read more books, and turn off their phones for a few weeks every now and then. If the prospect of turning off your phone for a week disturbs you that's a great indicator that you have a problem.
It's amazing to see how many people absolutely fail at logic on this site. Kids apparently have to be able to use tech at 5 years old or they'll be damaged for life!
Kids apparently can't learn anything useful unless it involves technology, and the parents are horrible people for undertaking a short-term experiment while their children are pre-adolescent. The horror!
Not parents. Good parenting requires walking a middle path where you are kind, protective, and providing to your children but not overly permissive or accommodating. It is not the easiest thing to do. So bad parents, and there are many, fall to one extreme. They either tend to be overly authoritarian, expecting that their needs and demands are primary and children are to do as they are told, no matter what, and often using violence to get their way, or just as a release of anger. Or they are overly permissive, they want to be friends with their kids, they will let them do pretty much whatever they want, even when they know it is bad, will acquiesce to all demands, give in to tantrums, and so on.
Either style of bad parenting is easier than good parenting, and so you see plenty of both.
It strikes me that the parents in the article are of the permissive kind of bad parents, combined with a fair bit of narcissism. They want their kids to be their friends, they don't want to be parents, and they want their kids to give them affection and attention. So when electronics were competing, their solution wasn't to put limits on it, but rather to just banish it all. That way they weren't being the bad guys since "everyone" including them had the same restrictions.
There are some real good arguments for it. Having kids is a big commitment. Kids aren't a fashion accessory, they aren't a plaything, they aren't something you have to make yourself feel better. They are a serious, difficult, commitment. You owe it to them most of all, but to society and to yourself as well, to provide them with all the support, love, stability, and help you can. It is a long term commitment too. The financial commitment alone lasts a long time, and the emotional commitment lasts a lifetime.
Well, if you are going to make that commitment, it isn't unreasonable to ask that you make the commitment to the other person with whom you are making the kids. You commit to each other to stay together and help each other, if for no reason other than you kids. Having two parents helps a lot in raising children. It is a difficult job to do single, in particular since you almost certainly also have to have a job to provide for your family as well.
So really, if marriage is something you aren't willing to commit to, then I have to ask if you are ready for the much larger commitment that is children. There's nothing wrong if you aren't but then don't have kids. It is perfectly valid to not have kids, to have a steady population without draconian measures like China we need people who do not wish to have kids to be free to do so such that those who wish to have many can also do so.
However if you do want kids, you need to accept the massive commitment that it is, and I would say also be willing to commit to your partner in raising those kids. Realize that it isn't going to be about what you want, it is going to be about what you kids need, and you need to be committed to that even when it isn't fun, isn't what you want.
So I don't think it is at all unreasonable to ask why a couple that wants to have children wouldn't get married, particularly given the legal ramifications. For some good insight on that, look up what Dan Savage has to say about it. He and his partner Terry (he's gay) adopted a kid but couldn't get married until recently. This created a number of issues with regards to insurance, critical care, and so on that just aren't a problem now that they are married and these issues affect their child. They didn't want to get married just because, they wanted to get married because they have a child they are committed to, and there are legal reasons why having that within a married relationship is beneficial.
My first thought when I read this was "That's a good idea, really" - not because I am against modern technology, but they have challenged themselves in a way, and found that it gives them something of real value.
I don't quite know if I find it amusing or shocking to see the sort of reactions here, even to the extremes of declaring that this is child abuse and an impending, national emergency. Really, you sound like a bunch of old prudes upon discovering that their teenage granddaughter as uncovered her ankle in public. What's up with you guys? Scared of the very thought that these people might be right, and you ought to put down your wankGadget and go into the big room with the blue ceiling?
Going outside, getting exercise, feeling the wind, sunshine and rain, meeting people and generally challenging yourself physically, socially and mentally are all good for you. You even become a better coder if you are not glued to the internet socket all day long. You will have more energy, you will feel less depressed.
I think we should applaud these guys - the internet and modern technology are good tools, but they are TOOLS. They shouldn't fill your whole life any more than a hammer or a frying pan.
Typical parenting failure.
My 2 year old loves playing with tablets, phones, computers, electronic toys, etc. I have to admit I sometimes worry about that a bit. On the one hand i feel that it's actually good - she'll need those skills in her future - and i'm proud that those little fingers already know how to navigate user interfaces. She's learning words and pictures from playing simple games and toddler apps. On the other hand, i worry that stuff is overstimulating - bright colors, music, sounds, pictures of cute little animals - like candy wrappers, made to attract kids to something unhealthy, and addictive. Also, most apps are very limited and repetitive, not engaging a child's creativity.
But then, what do i do when I've got some free time? I sit behind my computer, or in front of the tv, mostly. And kids imitate what their parents do. Also I have to admit I do find it convenient to have my hand free when she's focused on a led screen.
Fortunately, my little girl also loves to go outside. If I leave her with the tablet, she'll get bored after a while and will want to do something else. She'll come to me and drag me outside.
So, if your kid spends a lot of time playing with electronic toys, it's probably because they're imitating you. You want you kid to do more creative stuff, art & crafts, do it yourself! Do the dishes by hand, and they'll want to help out. Kids can moderate themselves, but they don't want to do what you want them to do when you want them to. Sometimes you'll need to force them to do things, but try to avoid it. Instead, be ready to join in their activities. So if your child wants to go outside in the rain, put on your boots and go stamp in some puddles together. Technology may be a bit additive (not immune myself) but making it illegal will only make it more attractive. Let technology work for you, let them learn from it, and enjoy it, while you can do something else, or join in the fun. Your kid will get bored with it after a while, and then you need to be ready to offer alternatives.
assignment != equality != identity
My Chambers from 1983 lists 'catched' as obsolete or dialect; also 'catchen', which to my ear sounds better.
As a young single male my thoughts on this probably count for squat, but I think that young kids should have access to technology but *only* under direct guidance. It should never be used to "shut them up" and it should be rationed when used as a toy.
My reasoning is that while there is *huge* benefits for the child when guided through enrichment activities it is detrimental to allow your child to simply vegetate (mostly mentally, but also physically) with these devices in their hands.
Spending time *with* your child and using these devices to get a head start on reading, writing, critical thinking, general knowledge/worldwide culture is basically the direct equivalent of guiding a child through their school homework. It's bonding, entertainment and education all in one and not in a terribly lame way! (like most "educational" games). As a child that did not get the privilege of having help with my homework (but occasionally with other things) I can vouch for the difference this makes.
You should not be forcing the child to perform to a high academic standard during this time (thus making it a negative experience). Just make sure they are thinking by asking them about what they're seeing/doing and introduce stimulus material where you can.
wouldn't look up from their parents' iPhones and iPads long enough to kick a ball around the backyard. 'That's kind of when it hit me because I'm like, wow, when I was a kid, I lived outside,' says Blair
Attempting to force your kid to have a childhood that matches yours is what self-centered egotism is. There's absolutely no reason that a child should be so farsically denied the privilege of having access to technology.
If you want a 5 year old and a 2 year old to kick a ball around some more; then arrange some outings, take them to a park, or lock them in the backyard for a few hours a week, with no toys except the ones you want them to play with.
The fact is, the kids will be best equipped to function in the world if they learn technology at an early age.
Imagine if Einstein couldn't be a scientist, because his parents were insistent that books were evil, banned them in their house, and he should spend his time as a kid frolicking about doing the exact same sorts of things they did?
I don't think it's unlikely that their home was made after 1986 dude.
How much technology did he have access to, that his parents had not? Would he have lived a better life with only pre-60s techology? I don't think so. It's called progress, and it's generally coupled with better life conditions. Now excess is the bad thing, and growing up well means balancing all the good and bad things in life. This is somethig the parents can, and must, help with.
The point wasn't that MRI's didn't exist before 1986. The point was that it is unlikely they would find an MRI created before 1986. Considering they seem to take this mentality with them wherever they go, it's not just about "banning it from the house" but from use anywhere.
They basically want their kids to have the 1986 experience because they otherwise don't know how to say "no" to the kids unless it's for some batshit insane idea like this.
I feel sorry for the kids, honestly. Seems this could be corrected with proper parenting instead of going some sort of half-assed kinda-Amish-but-not number.
So by banning all the post '86 tech they're not really giving their kids what they had growing up they're limiting them to everything before the were born. Did these parents never have anything that was invented after they were born while growing up? I bet they did. All or nothing is a weak choice for weak people.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I can certainly understand their desire to get away from these devices. So many people use these devices to 'entertain' their children. I've always found you are trading one problem for another. When we bought our last van I refused to have a DVD player in the vehicle. Having three children, I knew I'd be replacing 'I'm bored' with a battle over which video they would watch. BTW: try finding a used Sienna XLE without a DVD player. On long trips, we talk or listen to music. We do have tablet devices, cell phones and iPad touches. But we monitor their use. Until homework is done, they are not touched. If the weather is nice we ask them why they aren't outside playing. Without supervision, they would never take their eyes off the devices.
But, these devices also really do provide services that I would not want to do without. One great example, the quality of textbooks today is often poor. Sometimes my children actually do not have a textbook they can bring home. I'm often using the internet to help them when they run into a road block doing their homework. I would not do without that.
Didn't want my kids growing up being addicted to watching mindless television shows, so we stopped buying satellite and cable about ten years ago. We did keep the rest of our technology, and the kids have never once bitched about the lack of TV. They play outdoors with friends, indoors with friends, read books (some ebooks, some paper), play video games...they are very well adjusted, polite children and none of us miss TV.
Well, I miss some sports, but not enough to put up with other people watching reality shows and commercials in my vicinity all the time. Fuck that.
I don't know about you guys, but I first saw a hybrid car in 1986, and it was parked some twenty steps away from a working model scramjet.
Plenty of our current or even emerging technology is industrialisation of experimental materials/devices/designs from back then or before.
THANK YOU! Why is that so hard for people to understand.
This means that their kids are not allowed to be named Trey and Denton.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Everyone's a critic, and the internet is their sounding board, regardless of how idiotic or nonsensical their criticism may be.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
According to the headline, the house was built sometime after 1986 and the owners want to ban all technology from it. But what is technology? Is a hand powered water pump technology? What about a bucket used to draw water from a well, is the bucket technology?
Wonderful headline writing as it mangles English.
1986, not 1896. Mangled English or not, we did have electric pumps prior to '86.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Way to stunt your kids development. I guess the world needs ditch diggers too.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
So basically they're hipsters?
I hate sigs.
This is how this stuff gets started.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
These posts are amusing. I have two boys in college. Raising kids is simple in theory, very difficult in practice. Sort of like basic social skills that many on these boards lack. Too bad you can get a PhD without basic life skills... Love the kids. Spend time with them while they will still let you. Let go as they enter teenage years, but stay as close as possible. Their world is much different than yours was. Cutting off technology is like not having a TV when I was young. Sounds great in theory, but is simply another way of saying 'I don't want to help you grow up, so I will just cut you off from things that could possibly make MY life difficult.' In other words, cutting off kids from their peers to avoid having to monitor them. What kids, especially boys, DO notice is that you care. You ask how they are, you make it a point to have one nice dinner as a family each weekend, no matter how busy everyone is. Don't try to understand their music, their Facebook life, their clothes. In other word, let them grow to be their own people. And, don't nitpik the grammar. The world has REAL problems.
No, frankly, I just find it weird because I don't understand the value in pretending technologies don't really exist or ignoring innovation under the flawed assumption that advances really aren't advances.
Obviously people can live without the internet or tablets or cellphones. Quite often, people do it for a while on purpose as part of a "get away from it all" vacation trip to a remote part of the world where such things aren't prevalent.
But again, that makes sense and works because it's simply taking s short break from those things while you immerse yourself in a completely different lifestyle.
If I try to go back to 1986 from today, there's very little that fundamentally changes. I just suffer with inferior tools to accomplish the exact same things I always wanted to do. (EG. I may have to talk to people on a corded land-line telephone, instead of having freedom to make or take a call while I'm out and about. I have to listen to my music from a form of physical media which means I'm less able to carry a large selection of content around with me, and battery life of any portable music players is significantly worse.) Beyond perhaps being an interesting learning experience (modern history?) for a kid for a little while, I don't see any real advantages?
As a 40 year old, I remember life was pretty aweful until I discovered caffeine and got my first shell account in college. Everything's been fine ever since. I was 22, I think. That said, I don't think all technology is bad and maybe they're going a little too far. There ARE some pretty awesome techie advances that happened between 1986 and when the iPad/iPhone was invented that no one should miss out on. However, as for tablets and smartphones, I think these devices will definitely make a kid dumber. There's nothing intellectual about them, nothing that expands the mind, and it's depressing to walk around the mall and see 50 percent of people staring at their phones or talking on them. These devices just strike me as taking advantage of the average non-techie with seductive content and presentation. These parents are right to take a hard stand against them and I wish them the best of luck.
the NES. They can play Mario Bros, SMB donkey kong and all the first-gen NES games but no Metroid, Zelda or Castlevania (1987), SMB2 (1988), SMB3 (1990), Contra (1988) or Super C. They can play almost the full catalog of the Atari 2600, however.
Gee, their tablets beat out kicking a ball around. What a surprise. Ball games made me pretty miserable as a kid too. And that was long before these parents were born in '86.
These children our going to grow up in the current world, not their parents world. Why do people feel that it's so detrimental that kids grow up the same way they did? I see this a lot on forums, and many people (even in this thread) seem to agree with it, yet it doesn't make much sense. It would be like if bill gates parents only allowed him to play marbles, rather than learning about computers. Or if all of our parents decided we weren't allowed to learn to program - simply because it wasn't what your parents did when they were growing up.
More importantly, while it might not seem like it, the skills that those kids are learning with modern tech now will be detrimental to their future employment. Much like you learning to use computers as a child became detrimental to yours. If anything, I feel these parents are harming their children by putting such extreme limitations on them.
I suspect that they themselves don't have the ability to be responsible with the tech. They probably just sit around constantly on their phones and tablets and don't even pay attention to the kids. Tech addiction can be pretty bad. I don't really know why I don't have it so bad, but I do like to play games and watch some TV. I don't use Facebook or Twitter though. Perhaps the social media craze makes things more addicting. It can't be the only thing though as my in-laws are pretty addicted to their phones. They go through a two day drive to come out and visit their grand-daughter, but then sit there playing little games on their phone while ignoring their grand-daughter. It seems to me that they should put them down and spend a little more quality time with her while they are out visiting. It's not 100%, they do plenty of things when out visiting, but when at home sitting in the living room the phones will come out. Even if the grand-daughter is being cute or funny, you have to keep telling them to pay attention to her over and over. So, if these parents have the addiction themselves they would not be capable of teaching discipline and self control as they lack those attributes. Banning the tech is for their own addiction.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.