From your link: > For the EU as a whole the number of deaths from tobacco is estimated at well over 500,000 a year
Okay, compare that to the number of current smokers and all new smokers every year. Chances are relatively good that even if you are a smoker, you will die from something other than smoke-related illnesses/diseases
> I don't know anybody 25-30 who can say they didn't do stupid things at 17.
Now you know one. I didn't do anything really stupid until I was 20. As they say, "when it rains, it pours." I wish I would have done stupid things from 10-17 instead of 20-23, then I'd be better off today (26). Unfortunately for me, that's not the point.
> it's ludicris for [...] a child to be giving parenting advice
Ignoring the rapper typo:), it's not necessarily ludicrous. It seems unlikely that a 17-year old will have any useful advice for parents in general, his opinion still holds validity.
The older someone gets, the more important they think their opinion is, but IMO, that's crap. I thought it was generally true until I met some old people who thought they were "all that." And they're dumb as bricks, but they think they are important because they are old. They aren't.
A lot of the postings on this topic are the other thing that made me change my mind (not yours, mind you).
> I believe you have to take it on an individual basis.
WHAT!?!?!? You mean all these books (which have all been called both miracles and hogwash) don't have all the answers? Of course not. It's all bull that someone made up because they are old and think they have all the answers. Old, young, it's all perspective, and for the most part, equally wrong -- it's about intellect (not book-smarts, having a useable brain) and logic. Well, and willpower/self-determination I suppose, but that's a different aspect, I believe.
> I think the advice of "just trust your children and they'll make good choices" is very flawed.
Just as flawed as any other theory of child-rearing, except that this one will turn out more responsible crazies than the others.
It's better to be young and mistakenly think you have all the answers than to be old and mistakenly know it. -- Me
I see you are too smart for your own good: too smart to recognize trolling. So I'll drop the B.S for now, as you were right on about everything so far;P Except this:
> They must provide you with emergency care, at absurd rates, then you get to spend the rest of your life paying it off or filing bankruptcy.
E.R. treatment, while expensive, isn't usually ungodly so, although still quite a bit. AND, you can not be punished for not paying it. It can not go on your credit report and therefore has no influence on bankruptcy. However, since it is not on your credit report, you still technically "owe" tho money, even after filing for bankruptcy. They still can't send a repo man to your door to remove the rods they inserted in your leg.
BTW, I agree that we get jack shit for the inordinate amt. of taxes we pay, and that it isn't big/small gov. It's mismanagement & greed probably, but I don't claim (when I'm not being a dick) to know all or any answers. The difference between us is that you want fair services for the crapload of money you pay, and I want to pay less for the crappy service we DO get.
BTW2, I'm not as stupid as I appear to be, but only slightly less so.
My dog jumped in-to a burning ring of fire He went through, through, through, then the flames jumped higher He got burned, burned, burned on that crazy hoop of fire The hoop of fire The taste... of Dog is sweet When Fire... and doggy meet
Okay, enough for today, he's only been down there a few weeks and rolling already.
> Announced today on Wired News - A lawsuit by a garage door manufacturer that tried to use the DMCA to stop another company from making replacement universal remote controls was dismissed
Umm, just a point, here... that was not announced today... That was announced like... 3 months ago? Maybe 2?
> my advice is if you confront the police, don't be a prick.
See, I go about entirely differently. I am very amiable & polite, but I am still a complete asshole. IE, I tell them what they don't want to hear but can't do anything about and play very close to the rules, but I make it damn well known that they are hired to serve me, not to bully me around. Granted, I have never been caught for anything that would put me in jail. It would be an entirely different matter then ("yes, massa"). I'm not totally stupid, just a bit so.
> i'm not some porno freak, cause I know what the stuff if large quantities can do to you long term.
Umm, bullshit. I rarely look at porn and am way more fucked up than my porn-"addicted" friends. They've been all about it their whole life, but I say "big deal, tits & ass. Whoopdi-friggin-doo." And I'm wierd. Wish I would have had more porn growing up, then maybe I wouldn't be so closed. I wouldn't have been so scared of women 6 years ago if I had a better idea of what one looked like naked.
It's not the same for everyone, but sheltering your kids is bad. No questions, it's bad. Don't tell me that you're just doing your parental duty by keeping your children ignorant of the real world, you are fooling only yourself. (BTW, this isn't directed at any particular person, I have no idea how you personally raise your children.)
> > The younger kids would get "404 Not Found" and I'd blame the ISP > F'ing coward - don't blame the ISP, tell them you're doing your job
Although in a bit less harsh a way, I absolutely agree. Don't lie to your kids. Tell them at a young age why you're a bastard, and the point at which they understand may come sooner.
> the difference is that it's much easier to access via the net... a bona-fide shop of horrors is just a click away.
Guess what? Reality is a "shop of horrors." Just because it's new and scary, it is not easier to find children & "get 'em." It is by far easier to drive around until you find a kid, grab them & take off.
With the net you have to find one who is able to be lured, and not only that, but a potential molester has a BETTER chance of being caught using the net. You know, logs, cops posing as children, the pretty darn good chance the kid will get freaked, tell their parents, and THEY will send the law.
Simply, I don't buy the B.S. argument that it is easier for bad things to happen on the Internet. If your kids use I.M., turn off the "find buddy" or whatever, so random people can't just strike up a chat. Don't let your daughter have the username "10yrOldPotentialVictim," even though she wants it.
If your kids aren't IMing or using IRC (which is pretty doubtful), how are they going to be lured? By the 'evil' websites? If there is no chatting with anonymous people, the only thing you are protecting is the child's eyes from things you have decided they can't see, simply because you said so.
I'm not going to tell you how to raise children, but the more you shelter them, the worse it is going to be when they find out about reality.
> Don't tell me it's easier said than done. I'm 17, and I've had full access since we've had the internet. (four, five years ago.) I haven't done anything stupid yet > If you believe that, you are about as far from "Insightful" as you can get.
And by not saying anything of substance, you are even further off.
What is he not supposed to believe? That it's easier said than done? Respect, responsibility are taught, and if taught well, a 17yr old can be just as responsible on the Net as an adult is.
Obviously, you aren't saying he isn't 17 or that he hasn't had full 'Net access.
And I doubt you are trying to say that he HAS done something stupid, as you have as much idea of that as I do -- none.
So what did he say that you don't believe? That a teenager can be independent enough to be trustworthy? I know that very few parents believe that, but by not trusting your son to be responsible, he never will be. Of course, I'm young (26) and automatically discounted as not having a clue, but regardless of your opinion of me, I am correct (not to say that it is the ONLY factor, but I believe it to be the most important one).
> "Cyberspace" is just as dangerous as the "Real World". And last I checked, responsible parents don't just let their kids wander off anywhere
I want to argue this, but you raise a very good point that I cannot ignore nor refute. I will say, however, that it is NOT as dangerous as the real world. In the real world, wandering alone, a child can be kidnapped. That cannot happen on the 'Net.
I like a sick joke as much as (read: a lot more than) the next guy, but I'll refrain on this one and agree with you. If there is EVER "terror" in a child's voice there is certainly abuse of some kind going on.
> Smoking is likely to be a bad decision because they will be likely to get addicted to it and in the long run, it's likely to kill them
Okay, if you're going to be level-headed, be consistent -- that's one vory important thing in raising a child. Consistency means telling the truth, and the truth is that while yes, they are REALLY FREAKING addictive, they will most likely NOT kill you. Tell them the truth: That it's a nasty, dirty habit that some people choose to start and can't stop. Tell them the health problems it causes, show them pictures or smokers' lungs. Then tell them if you ever see them with a cigarette in their mouth that you'll slap the shit out of them and make them eat it. Maybe not the last part, but you get the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
> > The victim now can return fire.
...And they returned fire, as the poster said. What's your point?
> The Columbine shooters had a website, too..
> Kids do not simply state "someone is fat"
Yes, saying "She's a fatty fatty poopoohead." Is valid (assuming she truly is a poopoohead, which is beyond the scope of this forum).
Saying "She's as fat as a rhinocerous" would, OTOH, be bad (assuming she is not as fat as a rhinocerous, which she probably is not).
> Actually, Smoking does kill
From your link:
> For the EU as a whole the number of deaths from tobacco is estimated at well over 500,000 a year
Okay, compare that to the number of current smokers and all new smokers every year. Chances are relatively good that even if you are a smoker, you will die from something other than smoke-related illnesses/diseases
> I don't know anybody 25-30 who can say they didn't do stupid things at 17.
:), it's not necessarily ludicrous. It seems unlikely that a 17-year old will have any useful advice for parents in general, his opinion still holds validity.
Now you know one. I didn't do anything really stupid until I was 20. As they say, "when it rains, it pours." I wish I would have done stupid things from 10-17 instead of 20-23, then I'd be better off today (26). Unfortunately for me, that's not the point.
> it's ludicris for [...] a child to be giving parenting advice
Ignoring the rapper typo
The older someone gets, the more important they think their opinion is, but IMO, that's crap. I thought it was generally true until I met some old people who thought they were "all that." And they're dumb as bricks, but they think they are important because they are old. They aren't.
A lot of the postings on this topic are the other thing that made me change my mind (not yours, mind you).
> I believe you have to take it on an individual basis.
WHAT!?!?!? You mean all these books (which have all been called both miracles and hogwash) don't have all the answers? Of course not. It's all bull that someone made up because they are old and think they have all the answers. Old, young, it's all perspective, and for the most part, equally wrong -- it's about intellect (not book-smarts, having a useable brain) and logic. Well, and willpower/self-determination I suppose, but that's a different aspect, I believe.
> I think the advice of "just trust your children and they'll make good choices" is very flawed.
Just as flawed as any other theory of child-rearing, except that this one will turn out more responsible crazies than the others.
It's better to be young and mistakenly think you have all the answers than to be old and mistakenly know it. -- Me
I see you are too smart for your own good: too smart to recognize trolling. So I'll drop the B.S for now, as you were right on about everything so far ;P
Except this:
> They must provide you with emergency care, at absurd rates, then you get to spend the rest of your life paying it off or filing bankruptcy.
E.R. treatment, while expensive, isn't usually ungodly so, although still quite a bit. AND, you can not be punished for not paying it. It can not go on your credit report and therefore has no influence on bankruptcy. However, since it is not on your credit report, you still technically "owe" tho money, even after filing for bankruptcy. They still can't send a repo man to your door to remove the rods they inserted in your leg.
BTW, I agree that we get jack shit for the inordinate amt. of taxes we pay, and that it isn't big/small gov. It's mismanagement & greed probably, but I don't claim (when I'm not being a dick) to know all or any answers. The difference between us is that you want fair services for the crapload of money you pay, and I want to pay less for the crappy service we DO get.
BTW2, I'm not as stupid as I appear to be, but only slightly less so.
> I was the drugged out looser that everyone talked about behind my back.
You think THAT's bad, I'm a drugged-out loser, though no one knows. And I STILL get made fun of behind my back.
> Imagine what detail we'd get moving the lens 0.00000000000000000000000000001% closer to that nebula!
Oh, uh... yeah, good point.
> what does PHB stand for?
Public Health Blows
> Props to Mr. Cash.
My dog jumped in-to a burning ring of fire
He went through, through, through, then the flames jumped higher
He got burned, burned, burned on that crazy hoop of fire
The hoop of fire
The taste... of Dog is sweet
When Fire... and doggy meet
Okay, enough for today, he's only been down there a few weeks and rolling already.
> There is no "principle of fair use".
You're right, it's not a principle. It's a law. More specifically, parts of a law spelling ouut what you CAN do.
> It had to be said...
If one has to say that, it generally hadn't.
> Announced today on Wired News - A lawsuit by a garage door manufacturer that tried to use the DMCA to stop another company from making replacement universal remote controls was dismissed
Umm, just a point, here... that was not announced today... That was announced like... 3 months ago? Maybe 2?
> my advice is if you confront the police, don't be a prick.
See, I go about entirely differently. I am very amiable & polite, but I am still a complete asshole. IE, I tell them what they don't want to hear but can't do anything about and play very close to the rules, but I make it damn well known that they are hired to serve me, not to bully me around. Granted, I have never been caught for anything that would put me in jail. It would be an entirely different matter then ("yes, massa"). I'm not totally stupid, just a bit so.
> Is that Freedom Rock, man?
Well, turn it UP!
> Kill the fuckers. Kill the goddammed assholes sonovabitches
Oh, by Allah and his brother Bob, I was thinking exactly the same thing.
No wonder kids kill their parents -- a lot of parents are totally clueless fucking idiots.
I would not have had the guts to kill anyone, but I surely would have left the house for quite an extended period of time.
> i'm not some porno freak, cause I know what the stuff if large quantities can do to you long term.
Umm, bullshit. I rarely look at porn and am way more fucked up than my porn-"addicted" friends. They've been all about it their whole life, but I say "big deal, tits & ass. Whoopdi-friggin-doo." And I'm wierd. Wish I would have had more porn growing up, then maybe I wouldn't be so closed. I wouldn't have been so scared of women 6 years ago if I had a better idea of what one looked like naked.
It's not the same for everyone, but sheltering your kids is bad. No questions, it's bad. Don't tell me that you're just doing your parental duty by keeping your children ignorant of the real world, you are fooling only yourself. (BTW, this isn't directed at any particular person, I have no idea how you personally raise your children.)
> > The younger kids would get "404 Not Found" and I'd blame the ISP
> F'ing coward - don't blame the ISP, tell them you're doing your job
Although in a bit less harsh a way, I absolutely agree. Don't lie to your kids. Tell them at a young age why you're a bastard, and the point at which they understand may come sooner.
> the difference is that it's much easier to access via the net... a bona-fide shop of horrors is just a click away.
Guess what? Reality is a "shop of horrors." Just because it's new and scary, it is not easier to find children & "get 'em." It is by far easier to drive around until you find a kid, grab them & take off.
With the net you have to find one who is able to be lured, and not only that, but a potential molester has a BETTER chance of being caught using the net. You know, logs, cops posing as children, the pretty darn good chance the kid will get freaked, tell their parents, and THEY will send the law.
Simply, I don't buy the B.S. argument that it is easier for bad things to happen on the Internet. If your kids use I.M., turn off the "find buddy" or whatever, so random people can't just strike up a chat. Don't let your daughter have the username "10yrOldPotentialVictim," even though she wants it.
If your kids aren't IMing or using IRC (which is pretty doubtful), how are they going to be lured? By the 'evil' websites? If there is no chatting with anonymous people, the only thing you are protecting is the child's eyes from things you have decided they can't see, simply because you said so.
I'm not going to tell you how to raise children, but the more you shelter them, the worse it is going to be when they find out about reality.
> Don't tell me it's easier said than done. I'm 17, and I've had full access since we've had the internet. (four, five years ago.) I haven't done anything stupid yet
.
> If you believe that, you are about as far from "Insightful" as you can get.
And by not saying anything of substance, you are even further off.
What is he not supposed to believe? That it's easier said than done? Respect, responsibility are taught, and if taught well, a 17yr old can be just as responsible on the Net as an adult is.
Obviously, you aren't saying he isn't 17 or that he hasn't had full 'Net access
And I doubt you are trying to say that he HAS done something stupid, as you have as much idea of that as I do -- none.
So what did he say that you don't believe? That a teenager can be independent enough to be trustworthy? I know that very few parents believe that, but by not trusting your son to be responsible, he never will be. Of course, I'm young (26) and automatically discounted as not having a clue, but regardless of your opinion of me, I am correct (not to say that it is the ONLY factor, but I believe it to be the most important one).
> "Cyberspace" is just as dangerous as the "Real World". And last I checked, responsible parents don't just let their kids wander off anywhere
I want to argue this, but you raise a very good point that I cannot ignore nor refute. I will say, however, that it is NOT as dangerous as the real world. In the real world, wandering alone, a child can be kidnapped. That cannot happen on the 'Net.
> Sounds more like child abuse.
I like a sick joke as much as (read: a lot more than) the next guy, but I'll refrain on this one and agree with you. If there is EVER "terror" in a child's voice there is certainly abuse of some kind going on.
> They best measure of your personal ethos and integrity is what you do when you think nobody is watching.
;)
Okay, here's a strange question. Obviously illegal, but is it okay for kids to look at pictures of naked kids? Or is that still a sick mind?
Just a stupid question to annoy someone with a tender heart.
> Smoking is likely to be a bad decision because they will be likely to get addicted to it and in the long run, it's likely to kill them
Okay, if you're going to be level-headed, be consistent -- that's one vory important thing in raising a child. Consistency means telling the truth, and the truth is that while yes, they are REALLY FREAKING addictive, they will most likely NOT kill you.
Tell them the truth: That it's a nasty, dirty habit that some people choose to start and can't stop. Tell them the health problems it causes, show them pictures or smokers' lungs. Then tell them if you ever see them with a cigarette in their mouth that you'll slap the shit out of them and make them eat it. Maybe not the last part, but you get the idea.
> I'd say that the split is about 60/40 in favor of the former currently.
I, being well-versed in such things, would say that the split is more like 35/65, but whatever...
> One of these days you're gonna forget to select "Post Anonymously" and then you'll be for it!
Anonymous? Screw that. Only Karma Whores troll anonymously. I troll logged in, you squishy-nosed, parrot-humping, nerfherder. Or something...