So if someone knowingly misappropriates funds the onus is on you to not accuse them or you are being "uppity"?
You know there are times when it is best to be conciliatory but in my experience it is generally the case that when someone does something wrong they know they are doing something wrong. It's not usually a grey issue it's black and white - they are doing something wrong, they know it is wrong or delude themselves beyond a reasonable degree in order to believe it isn't. And then they do it anyhow. I think it would be a better world if such people were just confronted with that. Not mollycoddled, not have their "feelings" be a paramount concern - just be told face to face "you're a liar/cheat/sneak/thief/whatever" and then maybe the incidence of such behaviour in the general population would decline over time.
It became popular some time back to say "let's not play the blame game." Well on some occasions that may be the best approach but imho it has been take way too far... let's play the blame game a lot more. But let's call it what it really is "the accountability for your actions" game.
I didn't say they should think of themselves as "evil" I said they believed they were right and I was something else, with the suggestion that "something else" might be "evil" (in fact I'm reasonably sure at least a couple of people think that).
I do think that when the lawyer they have hired tells them they were wrong that they should seriously consider that they were... wrong. None of them seem willing to do that, which was my final point.
And the point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed, if that it is only a matter of opportunity then they are still bullies, just unrealized ones who haven't found the right victim yet. Similarly, if it is only a matter of whether they succeed or not, then the people you mention are still thieves... they just haven't found the right opportunity yet.
Come on, they would bully someone if they thought they could get away with it and you think they aren't bullies?
Your analysis is spot on. I've seen this many times both as a child and an adult. And I've experienced it myself. The group will observe the fight (physical or otherwise) begin and start sizing up who the winner will be. Most will start siding with the projected winner. A few will tentatively stand on principle either siding with the projected loser or staying neutral but then as it becomes clearer and clearer who the winner will be they will all eventually line up with the winner.
I went through this very thing in adult life where a small group of people were abusing their power and I resisted. I kept pointing out to them that they were violating the law and behaving as bullies and that if they kept it up they would end up in court. I didn't take action for a very long time, years, because who wants to litigate against people you have to deal with on a daily basis? In hindsight that continuing reluctance to escalate was a mistake. But eventually I did launch an action against them.
One day the ring leader comes to talk to me and after trying and failing to scare me he asked what I would do if I lost (because I could lose everything I owned) and I told him "Then I guess I'll lose and start over - it's a matter of principle to me." Whooosh... the guy (who was quite a weasel) just couldn't understand that anyone would do that. They kept it up, perjured themselves, and took every opportunity, frequently illegal, to pressure me into quitting. Eventually they lost, settling out of court. My health suffered significantly, and probably permanently, and financially my costs were only partly covered (the lawyers for both sides did quite well). Somehow they have twisted this around in their minds that I'm somehow the wrong one, a bully (roflmao) etc. etc. That's despite the fact that when the bill came and they whined their own lawyer told them "Well you did something wrong and now you're paying the price."
Their anger is almost palpable. My take on it is that even though I had appealed to them on a regular basis, individually and as a group, to solve the problem without further conflict, that the facts showed they had repeatedly behaved atrociously and illegally, they are unwilling to think of themselves like that so some mental gymnastics occur so that they can believe they were in the right and I was just... evil? I just did what I thought my Dad would have done. As for the group they are continuing on with their old ways - just not trying to do it to me again. So far.
Standing up to bullies doesn't make them stop bullying, it just makes them pick an easier target.
Along with that lesson you also have to make sure your child learns the skills to fight back. I'm not saying this applies to you but parents who tell their kids to "fight back" and leave it at that thinking they have solved the problem just leave their kids worse off - feeling more isolated - because in many cases the reason the kid isn't fighting back is that they don't think they can or don't know how to.
Tell your children to fight back against bullies and then teach them the skills they need to do it - or keep out of it altogether.
If you don't stand up to a bully, you'll only look like an attractive target to other bullies, and other non-bullies who might feel inclined to bully you because they know you won't respond.
Ummm if they bully someone they are bullies, not "non-bullies". Being inclined to bully someone if it seems they won't fight back is pretty much the definition of a bully. Trying to distinguish between the two just artificially diminishes the perceived size of the portion of the population that are bullies - probably comforting to some, notably "non-bully bullies", but not helpful in the long run.
Ummm, "Hello World" is not even close to being in the category of one of the very first programs ever made. At least not by straight chronological measure.
Years ago NASA developed precisely that technology to enhance image data from the Hubble - it is called "DRIZZLE" technology. I don't know if NASA was the first to describe and/or implement such technology.
Apple is requiring that their suppliers (the publishers) charge them the same or less than they charge everyone else.
ok I said I was through but one last try... the summary said:
Furthermore, Apple requires that if you sell books through them that you absolutely cannot sell them for less through anyone else.
in other words they are attempting to dictate the retail price - not the wholesale price to other retailers.
For what you said to be true the summary would have had to say:
Furthermore, Apple requires that if you sell books through them that you absolutely cannot sell them for less to anyone else.
But that is not what the summary said. I thought the summary was pretty clear, the author of the ebook is clearly discussing retail prices, not wholesale prices. Now because of the way Apple markets things the retail price also tells you the wholesale price to Apple but that may not be the marketing model of other retailers which is why the restriction is phrased in terms of retail prices not wholesale prices and that is one reason why the analogy to which I responded is flawed. But it is also flawed even if the other retailers use a marketing scheme similar to Apple's.
Let's make it concrete. Suppose Apple takes a 50% cut of the retail price and you are retailing through them for $2 - you are effectively wholesaling it to Apple for $1. Now suppose Pear takes the retail price and charges a flat $.50 to the author. If I sell through Apple for a retail price of $2 I make $1 but I could make the same $1 selling through Pear for a retail price of $1.50 except then I would be violating the agreement not to sell through Pear at a retail price lower than $2.
The same holds true if Pear markets like Apple but at a lower cut - say Apple takes 70% of the price you retail the book at and Pear takes 50% - then if you retail through Apple at $1 you get $0.30 but you could make the same amount of money by retailing through Pear at a retail price of $0.60 except the agreement prevents you from retailing the book through Pear for $0.60. In both cases the "cost" to Apple and Pear is $0.30, i.e. your cut, effectively your price to them, is the same in both cases - that isn't what Apple is concerned about.
It is the difference between "through" and "to" - they are attempting to control the retail price of other vendors you sell through.
Customers make the decisiopn on where to buy for lots of reasons in the brick and mortar world - most of those reasons disappear in electronic retailing and price becomes the major, if not only, factor. Why would you buy at Apple for $1 if you can buy the exact same thing for $0.50 from another e-tailer??? Yes, input costs are still a factor but the dominant factor in e-tailing is who can sell the exact same product for less. Especially when the product is only a dollar or two to begin with.
This situation is partly a consequence of the whole model - that you don't sell to Apple but rather you sell it to the end purchaser through Apple's website. But even if it were more traditional, e.g. if you wholesale it to both Apple and Pear for $1, but Pear sells it for $0.50 less than Apple's eventual retail price. Do you think what Apple is going to be concerned about is that you sold it to both of them for the same price?
Of course not. And this is going to happen more and more - companies like Apple have a lot of overhead - let's summarize the reasons as that they are "fancy" - but on the net other companies can provide the exact same product at a lower price by cutting down on the "fancy". Apple doesn't want that. They don't want competition from the low rent district. They don't want to go up against Walmart.
ok, I've spent way more time on this sub-topic than it merits - I'm done.
Apple requires that if you sell books through them that you absolutely cannot sell them for less through anyone else
It isn't a case of the manufacturer innately wanting to tell retailers what price they can sell it at.
I think an appropriate analogy is that you buy a chocolate bar at Dangerway for $1 then later you go over to Bargainway and buy the same chocolate bar. It is $1 there too. You tell the manager you are surprised because everything else in the store is cheaper than the same item at Dangerway and he responds:
"We could sell it for about half that and still make money but the manufacturer requires us to sell it at the same price as Dangerway and if we don't then they won't supply it to us. The manufacturer said that normally they wouldn't care what price we sold it at but they want to have Dangerway carry it and Dangerway insisted on this - so that stores like us couldn't beat them on price. So we are forced to fix our price at the same as the Dangerway price or we can't sell it at all."
The fact that Dangerway is using a third party (the manufacturer) to coerce Bargainway into a price fixing arrangement, designed to eliminate competition from lower prices, doesn't mean that it isn't a price fixing arrangement.
Dangerway is using it's market position to eliminate competition from other retailers who would otherwise sell at a lower price. Seems anti-competitive to me. That's all I have to say on this topic.
Conspiring to prevent anyone else from being the price leader is anti-competitive. The actions described prevent the price from going lower due to competitive pressure. I'm sorry you don't see that, and continuing this seems fruitless, so I'll post no more on this particular topic.
Funny but requiring that no one undersell them doesn't sound like competition to me - it sounds like it is preventing the lowering of prices by stifling competitive pressure.
Actually it wouldn't because with the file systems suddenly going RO there was no tmp file storage anywhere and one side effect of that was that I couldn't open any new windows - I just got an empty frame and that was it... but I admit gmail didn't cross my mind:)
So instead of all installs having the bug only some installs will have it... doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
While I'm criticising... the recent patch to turn off SMART monitoring, because it apparently damages some SSD's, could have been handled better. On my system it seemed to have a side effect which manifested as all the file systems suddenly going RO - while I was running and editing something important. Even inserting a thumb drive to try and save the work resulted in it coming up RO. And it wouldn't "shutdown".
Long story short, after cycling the power it took the better part of half a day to get things straightened out. Yes there was notice of the change but honestly who reads every single little description of every single patch? Something this major should have had lots of bells and whistles to attract attention - not because of the headache I suffered, although it would have been nice to avoid the frustration and wasted time - but because turning off SMART monitoring without making damn sure the user knows the health of his disks aren't being monitored anymore is assinine.
Pacific coastal water was 1.02 +/- 0.26 x 10(-14) g
That is per gram of seawater... 1 gr of seawater being roughly 1 cc of seawater. So a cubic meter of seawater contains 10(9) * 10(-14) = 10(-5) gr. and 100 m3 of seawater contains a milligram of iridium... that's a cube only a few meters on a side. How many virus particles can be made functional with a mg of iridium? Sounds to me like with a whole ocean to feed on there could be quite a large number of virus particles activated. So the answer to "Where would the iridium come form?" is - seawater.
Just as another anecdotal data point I've never had a media failure after backup to CD/DVD disks or DAT tapes and have retrieved data off them 10 years after writing with no problems at all. I do tend not to burn at the highest possible speed and I always verify after burning... at the verify stage I occasionally find a failed archive (even though the burn operation reported success) or one that is iffy (takes multiple retries to read it), but for the most part things have worked quite well.
Normally I am the first one up with the "parents need to be responsible for what their kids are doing" flag. I was raised at a time when there wasn't much concern/awareness of sexual predators, skinned knees, occasional fights and so on and we were allowed, by parents considered to be quite conscientious for the time, to run free to an extent that today would get most kids seized by child welfare. And I certainly don't want to live in a society that is run at the level of the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and emotional sensibilities.
But there has to be an element of realism to all this. Even the best of parents cannot monitor their children 24/7. Do the kids have access to a computer anywhere else, like say at school? Well then how can a parent control that? Do the kids ever visit their friend's house where there is a computer? Then, other than never letting their kids visit the homes of their friends, how can the parents exercise absolute control over that?
And let's not forget the most important thing... kids are smart and learning 24/7 how to do what they want to do and unless parents are spending 24/7 trying to keep ahead of the the kid's learning curve then the kids will get access to things without the knowledge of their parents.... or at least without the real-time knowledge of their parents. Want to bet who knows more about smart phones - an average 12 year old or an average 35 year old? I'd bet on the 12 year old.
So let's start from the realistic premise that even good parents cannot monitor their kids at all times. And let's also realize that even good parents cannot instil adult level sensibility in a child, i.e. kids do dumb/dangerous/risky/strange things because they are kids.
If you accept that premise then one question that arises will be what can the rest of us (sometimes known as society) do to protect kids from their more dangerous activities? And the next question might be "will enacting that protection harm the rights of adults (sometimes known as society) to a degree that makes it difficult to justify the benefit received by the children?"
Slashdot Mirror
So if someone knowingly misappropriates funds the onus is on you to not accuse them or you are being "uppity"?
You know there are times when it is best to be conciliatory but in my experience it is generally the case that when someone does something wrong they know they are doing something wrong. It's not usually a grey issue it's black and white - they are doing something wrong, they know it is wrong or delude themselves beyond a reasonable degree in order to believe it isn't. And then they do it anyhow. I think it would be a better world if such people were just confronted with that. Not mollycoddled, not have their "feelings" be a paramount concern - just be told face to face "you're a liar/cheat/sneak/thief/whatever" and then maybe the incidence of such behaviour in the general population would decline over time.
It became popular some time back to say "let's not play the blame game." Well on some occasions that may be the best approach but imho it has been take way too far... let's play the blame game a lot more. But let's call it what it really is "the accountability for your actions" game.
Can you give an example of what it would mean to "stand up to injustice in an uppity manner"?
I didn't say they should think of themselves as "evil" I said they believed they were right and I was something else, with the suggestion that "something else" might be "evil" (in fact I'm reasonably sure at least a couple of people think that).
I do think that when the lawyer they have hired tells them they were wrong that they should seriously consider that they were... wrong. None of them seem willing to do that, which was my final point.
And the point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed, if that it is only a matter of opportunity then they are still bullies, just unrealized ones who haven't found the right victim yet. Similarly, if it is only a matter of whether they succeed or not, then the people you mention are still thieves... they just haven't found the right opportunity yet.
Come on, they would bully someone if they thought they could get away with it and you think they aren't bullies?
Your analysis is spot on. I've seen this many times both as a child and an adult. And I've experienced it myself. The group will observe the fight (physical or otherwise) begin and start sizing up who the winner will be. Most will start siding with the projected winner. A few will tentatively stand on principle either siding with the projected loser or staying neutral but then as it becomes clearer and clearer who the winner will be they will all eventually line up with the winner.
I went through this very thing in adult life where a small group of people were abusing their power and I resisted. I kept pointing out to them that they were violating the law and behaving as bullies and that if they kept it up they would end up in court. I didn't take action for a very long time, years, because who wants to litigate against people you have to deal with on a daily basis? In hindsight that continuing reluctance to escalate was a mistake. But eventually I did launch an action against them.
One day the ring leader comes to talk to me and after trying and failing to scare me he asked what I would do if I lost (because I could lose everything I owned) and I told him "Then I guess I'll lose and start over - it's a matter of principle to me." Whooosh... the guy (who was quite a weasel) just couldn't understand that anyone would do that. They kept it up, perjured themselves, and took every opportunity, frequently illegal, to pressure me into quitting. Eventually they lost, settling out of court. My health suffered significantly, and probably permanently, and financially my costs were only partly covered (the lawyers for both sides did quite well). Somehow they have twisted this around in their minds that I'm somehow the wrong one, a bully (roflmao) etc. etc. That's despite the fact that when the bill came and they whined their own lawyer told them "Well you did something wrong and now you're paying the price."
Their anger is almost palpable. My take on it is that even though I had appealed to them on a regular basis, individually and as a group, to solve the problem without further conflict, that the facts showed they had repeatedly behaved atrociously and illegally, they are unwilling to think of themselves like that so some mental gymnastics occur so that they can believe they were in the right and I was just... evil? I just did what I thought my Dad would have done. As for the group they are continuing on with their old ways - just not trying to do it to me again. So far.
Standing up to bullies doesn't make them stop bullying, it just makes them pick an easier target.
Along with that lesson you also have to make sure your child learns the skills to fight back. I'm not saying this applies to you but parents who tell their kids to "fight back" and leave it at that thinking they have solved the problem just leave their kids worse off - feeling more isolated - because in many cases the reason the kid isn't fighting back is that they don't think they can or don't know how to.
Tell your children to fight back against bullies and then teach them the skills they need to do it - or keep out of it altogether.
That seems like a very simplistic analysis. mysidia's post contains some very valid concerns.
Ummm if they bully someone they are bullies, not "non-bullies". Being inclined to bully someone if it seems they won't fight back is pretty much the definition of a bully. Trying to distinguish between the two just artificially diminishes the perceived size of the portion of the population that are bullies - probably comforting to some, notably "non-bully bullies", but not helpful in the long run.
Ummm, "Hello World" is not even close to being in the category of one of the very first programs ever made. At least not by straight chronological measure.
If you're going to quote "Flowers for Algernon" you should credit Daniel Keyes.
Years ago NASA developed precisely that technology to enhance image data from the Hubble - it is called "DRIZZLE" technology. I don't know if NASA was the first to describe and/or implement such technology.
Apple is requiring that their suppliers (the publishers) charge them the same or less than they charge everyone else.
ok I said I was through but one last try... the summary said:
Furthermore, Apple requires that if you sell books through them that you absolutely cannot sell them for less through anyone else.
in other words they are attempting to dictate the retail price - not the wholesale price to other retailers.
For what you said to be true the summary would have had to say:
Furthermore, Apple requires that if you sell books through them that you absolutely cannot sell them for less to anyone else.
But that is not what the summary said. I thought the summary was pretty clear, the author of the ebook is clearly discussing retail prices, not wholesale prices. Now because of the way Apple markets things the retail price also tells you the wholesale price to Apple but that may not be the marketing model of other retailers which is why the restriction is phrased in terms of retail prices not wholesale prices and that is one reason why the analogy to which I responded is flawed. But it is also flawed even if the other retailers use a marketing scheme similar to Apple's.
Let's make it concrete. Suppose Apple takes a 50% cut of the retail price and you are retailing through them for $2 - you are effectively wholesaling it to Apple for $1. Now suppose Pear takes the retail price and charges a flat $.50 to the author. If I sell through Apple for a retail price of $2 I make $1 but I could make the same $1 selling through Pear for a retail price of $1.50 except then I would be violating the agreement not to sell through Pear at a retail price lower than $2.
The same holds true if Pear markets like Apple but at a lower cut - say Apple takes 70% of the price you retail the book at and Pear takes 50% - then if you retail through Apple at $1 you get $0.30 but you could make the same amount of money by retailing through Pear at a retail price of $0.60 except the agreement prevents you from retailing the book through Pear for $0.60. In both cases the "cost" to Apple and Pear is $0.30, i.e. your cut, effectively your price to them, is the same in both cases - that isn't what Apple is concerned about.
It is the difference between "through" and "to" - they are attempting to control the retail price of other vendors you sell through.
Customers make the decisiopn on where to buy for lots of reasons in the brick and mortar world - most of those reasons disappear in electronic retailing and price becomes the major, if not only, factor. Why would you buy at Apple for $1 if you can buy the exact same thing for $0.50 from another e-tailer??? Yes, input costs are still a factor but the dominant factor in e-tailing is who can sell the exact same product for less. Especially when the product is only a dollar or two to begin with.
This situation is partly a consequence of the whole model - that you don't sell to Apple but rather you sell it to the end purchaser through Apple's website. But even if it were more traditional, e.g. if you wholesale it to both Apple and Pear for $1, but Pear sells it for $0.50 less than Apple's eventual retail price. Do you think what Apple is going to be concerned about is that you sold it to both of them for the same price?
Of course not. And this is going to happen more and more - companies like Apple have a lot of overhead - let's summarize the reasons as that they are "fancy" - but on the net other companies can provide the exact same product at a lower price by cutting down on the "fancy". Apple doesn't want that. They don't want competition from the low rent district. They don't want to go up against Walmart.
ok, I've spent way more time on this sub-topic than it merits - I'm done.
I find the analogy flawed. From the summary:
Apple requires that if you sell books through them that you absolutely cannot sell them for less through anyone else
It isn't a case of the manufacturer innately wanting to tell retailers what price they can sell it at.
I think an appropriate analogy is that you buy a chocolate bar at Dangerway for $1 then later you go over to Bargainway and buy the same chocolate bar. It is $1 there too. You tell the manager you are surprised because everything else in the store is cheaper than the same item at Dangerway and he responds:
"We could sell it for about half that and still make money but the manufacturer requires us to sell it at the same price as Dangerway and if we don't then they won't supply it to us. The manufacturer said that normally they wouldn't care what price we sold it at but they want to have Dangerway carry it and Dangerway insisted on this - so that stores like us couldn't beat them on price. So we are forced to fix our price at the same as the Dangerway price or we can't sell it at all."
The fact that Dangerway is using a third party (the manufacturer) to coerce Bargainway into a price fixing arrangement, designed to eliminate competition from lower prices, doesn't mean that it isn't a price fixing arrangement.
Dangerway is using it's market position to eliminate competition from other retailers who would otherwise sell at a lower price. Seems anti-competitive to me. That's all I have to say on this topic.
Conspiring to prevent anyone else from being the price leader is anti-competitive. The actions described prevent the price from going lower due to competitive pressure. I'm sorry you don't see that, and continuing this seems fruitless, so I'll post no more on this particular topic.
Funny but requiring that no one undersell them doesn't sound like competition to me - it sounds like it is preventing the lowering of prices by stifling competitive pressure.
Mmmm sounds an awful lot like price fixing, or as it is sometimes known anti-competitive acts, which is illegal (supposedly) where I live.
Actually it wouldn't because with the file systems suddenly going RO there was no tmp file storage anywhere and one side effect of that was that I couldn't open any new windows - I just got an empty frame and that was it... but I admit gmail didn't cross my mind :)
So instead of all installs having the bug only some installs will have it... doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
While I'm criticising... the recent patch to turn off SMART monitoring, because it apparently damages some SSD's, could have been handled better. On my system it seemed to have a side effect which manifested as all the file systems suddenly going RO - while I was running and editing something important. Even inserting a thumb drive to try and save the work resulted in it coming up RO. And it wouldn't "shutdown".
Long story short, after cycling the power it took the better part of half a day to get things straightened out. Yes there was notice of the change but honestly who reads every single little description of every single patch? Something this major should have had lots of bells and whistles to attract attention - not because of the headache I suffered, although it would have been nice to avoid the frustration and wasted time - but because turning off SMART monitoring without making damn sure the user knows the health of his disks aren't being monitored anymore is assinine.
Damn older employees and their foolish "hard copy is secure" dogma! Everyone knows digital media is much more secure dagnabit!
was my longest I think. 80+ per week was routine on some contracts.
oh yeah, and it was uphill both ways, in the snow, using rocks for a computer... but we didn't complain about it.. we liked it like that!
Getting laid, frequently, seemed to hold the symptoms at bay until high school was over.
That is per gram of seawater... 1 gr of seawater being roughly 1 cc of seawater. So a cubic meter of seawater contains 10(9) * 10(-14) = 10(-5) gr. and 100 m3 of seawater contains a milligram of iridium... that's a cube only a few meters on a side. How many virus particles can be made functional with a mg of iridium? Sounds to me like with a whole ocean to feed on there could be quite a large number of virus particles activated. So the answer to "Where would the iridium come form?" is - seawater.
Yeah... how could the virus ever find more iridium oxide while floating around in the world's oceans?
Just as another anecdotal data point I've never had a media failure after backup to CD/DVD disks or DAT tapes and have retrieved data off them 10 years after writing with no problems at all. I do tend not to burn at the highest possible speed and I always verify after burning... at the verify stage I occasionally find a failed archive (even though the burn operation reported success) or one that is iffy (takes multiple retries to read it), but for the most part things have worked quite well.
Normally I am the first one up with the "parents need to be responsible for what their kids are doing" flag. I was raised at a time when there wasn't much concern/awareness of sexual predators, skinned knees, occasional fights and so on and we were allowed, by parents considered to be quite conscientious for the time, to run free to an extent that today would get most kids seized by child welfare. And I certainly don't want to live in a society that is run at the level of the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and emotional sensibilities.
But there has to be an element of realism to all this. Even the best of parents cannot monitor their children 24/7. Do the kids have access to a computer anywhere else, like say at school? Well then how can a parent control that? Do the kids ever visit their friend's house where there is a computer? Then, other than never letting their kids visit the homes of their friends, how can the parents exercise absolute control over that?
And let's not forget the most important thing... kids are smart and learning 24/7 how to do what they want to do and unless parents are spending 24/7 trying to keep ahead of the the kid's learning curve then the kids will get access to things without the knowledge of their parents.... or at least without the real-time knowledge of their parents. Want to bet who knows more about smart phones - an average 12 year old or an average 35 year old? I'd bet on the 12 year old.
So let's start from the realistic premise that even good parents cannot monitor their kids at all times. And let's also realize that even good parents cannot instil adult level sensibility in a child, i.e. kids do dumb/dangerous/risky/strange things because they are kids.
If you accept that premise then one question that arises will be what can the rest of us (sometimes known as society) do to protect kids from their more dangerous activities? And the next question might be "will enacting that protection harm the rights of adults (sometimes known as society) to a degree that makes it difficult to justify the benefit received by the children?"