I started a business when my daughter was 4 years old. The only reason I was able to do it was because that was when my wife went back to work and got insurance for us through her job.
And if your wife wasn't able to get a job with insurance, you all would have fallen over dead? Or are you costing the insurance company 5 times the amount of money you pay in premiums each month?
No. There is no reason for a 4 year old to have a phone because there is no reason a 4 year old should ever be out of view of an adult.
I grew up on a farm in the upper midwest. Kids are out of sight of parents about 90% of the time, the 4 year olds right with the older siblings. We might have been playing in the barn, or working in the barn feeding the animals, or playing in the pasture behind the barn. Dad was at work, mom was cleaning or cooking or watching soaps (more of the first two than the last one). Being in sight of an adult was not a priority.
Not that a cell phone would be a necessity, but if there were cheap walkie-talkies that actually worked, mom would have been less worried about us. But she was never too worried to let us go outside to play.
Blogologue's 3.9 year old son wants a phone, but doesn't know how to ask daddy for it. So he hacked blogologue's/. account and posted the question. Later he is going to spike his coffee, and make him think he wrote the post himself during a late night of slashdot reading.
My daughter had one at that age. Every so often it rang, and Barbie talked to my daughter. Usually something along the lines of, "Let's go... to a party... today," or "Do you want to go... to the beach... this weekend?" So, basically, three part sentences, randomized. My daughter was just 3 or 4, and knew it wasn't really Barbie, but she would talk to her each time Barbie called.
One day, after the phone rang and Barbie and my daughter had a chat, my mother-in-law asked is a very confused and exasperated voice "Who keeps calling her?"
She actually thought it was a real phone. She was in her 80s at the time, so it wasn't very surprising. But it was hilarious.:^)
Actually, "the guy" can't say what he likes. There are laws about that in the workplace too, especially if he is the boss/owner of the business.
The irony of saying "People can't be free if people are allowed to infringe on the freedom of others", while insisting people can be forced to associate with those they don't want to, is lost on so many people.
We never learned the cue/queue pair in school. No one uses "queue" in America for general day-to-day conversation. And only so many know what the word is when talking about printing.
As for using "cue" correctly, I see/hear it often enough, both in relation to playing pool and acting.
Quoting an informative post, because someone doesn't like it and modded it down.
You must be too young to have 1st-hand experience in this bit of history.
First, Nixon was very far to the left in the Republican party (he implemented wage & price controls and created the EPA while hugging Communist China and trying to make nuclear arms deals with Russia that favored the Russians) but he got the support of the GOP base because [1] he had a history of fierce anti-communist action earlier in his career and [2] in each election cycle he cozied up to the social conservative base... not very hard to do given that BOTH parties used to be primarily Christian, with Democrats having somewhat higher penetration onto the Jewish communities. NOBODY in national politics back then would publicly embrace ANYTHING homo-, or drug-, or abortion- or athist-related.
Barry Goldwater was not a prophet, nor was he a conservative... the man was very Ron Paul in his views (i.e. a Libertarian) though not the same in his public persona. Barry had the strong support of a certain political block in his earlier races, and when they came back to him years later to beg him to run for president as a standard-bearer for conservatives within the Republican party he felt morally obliged to do it... which is why he ran that race (and his lack of desire to actually win was probably part of the problem with that campaign). The young conservatives at that time begged Barry to run because the establishment GOP was pushing the usual Rinos (not called that back then) like Mitt Romney's dad and the Rockefellers, none of whom were for smaller, constitutional government.
The modern GOP is FAR to the left of the GOP of 1980 (many modern Republicans have gone Libertarian on social issues like abortion, gay stuff, and half the current Republicans in the senate just voted to fund Obamacare...) you just think the GOP has moved right because the modern Democrats have moved so far left so fast that the gap between parties has grown very wide. Just 8 years ago, EVERY Democrat running for President was opposed to "gay marriage"... Democrat President Bill Clinton signed DOMA and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policies. During the 1980s Democrats used to scream and hollar and stomp about deficits and they repeatedly demanded Reagan negotiate with them on debt cieling limits... now they yell that the limits do not matter and they are printing money faster than anybody in history ever has...
Sandy was category 3, though it had weakened to category 1 when it hit the US. It was the 2nd costliest Atlantic hurricane ever.
Costly because of where it hit and the long build to storm surge caused a lot of flooding and damage. If it had hit Florida and died over Georgia, no one outside would have cared much*, because it just was not a powerful storm.
. *I say this because no one cares much whenever Florida gets hit by a hurricane. It's expected to happen.
How many were predicted? How many were predicted to his US mainland? How many did hit US mainland?
And Sandy was a Category 1 storm. Ignoring all the hype, the only reason anyone cares about Sandy is because it hit New York instead of Florida or Texas.
That's how Hawaii is. All traffic tickets are paid to the state, and the state gives money to the county/city police forces in the annual budget. The cops really have no financial interest to give tickets, and rarely do. If you get a ticket, and challenge it, the cop has no financial interest in showing up in court.
One guy I worked with got a ticket for going over 100mph on the highway at night. After two or three court dates with the cop not showing up, the judge dropped it.
I got pulled over one time for going over 40 in a 25 zone, and got a warning. That area always had speeders though, because it was right in front of the police sub-station. Cops there are either about to out on patrol, or are just getting back from hours of patrol. Neither group wants to pull someone over at that moment. That one day, they had a speed trap set up. But, as I said, I only got a warning. (I honestly thought the zone was 35, and told the cop that. I don't know if that mattered, and agree that it shouldn't have.)
You "don't see why it is a terrible law" except for the part of it you don't like. But surely people still break that part in ways you don't like, as opposed to the way you would do it.
How about assholes like me who don't believe the government has the right to tell me to wear a seatbelt? I don't believe the public safety is tied to whether I'm belted in, and I don't believe your insurance rates are reason enough to make my personal safety decision illegal.
Mostly because social mores reflected our fear of being murdered and were embodied in religious edicts not to murder... and the lack of fatal traffic accidents in our hunter-gatherer days.
Oh.... recidivism you say? Compare DUI repeat offenders vs murder.
How many DUI repeat offenders have actually killed someone? How many murderers have actually killed someone?
Wait, that's not the comparison you wanted? It's the one that makes the most sense.
I could indeed offer some actual evidence, from scientists and non-scientists. But you apparently have your mind made up, and are stating you'll dismiss anything that isn't from paleoclimatologists (as if only they can point out bad science in Mann's work), just as I dismiss anything from Michael Mann himself.
Slashdot Mirror
I started a business when my daughter was 4 years old. The only reason I was able to do it was because that was when my wife went back to work and got insurance for us through her job.
And if your wife wasn't able to get a job with insurance, you all would have fallen over dead? Or are you costing the insurance company 5 times the amount of money you pay in premiums each month?
shoving bath salts up his poop chute
That's a misnomer for methylenedioxypyrovalerone.
No, that was a misnomer for his anus.
No. There is no reason for a 4 year old to have a phone because there is no reason a 4 year old should ever be out of view of an adult.
I grew up on a farm in the upper midwest. Kids are out of sight of parents about 90% of the time, the 4 year olds right with the older siblings. We might have been playing in the barn, or working in the barn feeding the animals, or playing in the pasture behind the barn. Dad was at work, mom was cleaning or cooking or watching soaps (more of the first two than the last one). Being in sight of an adult was not a priority.
Not that a cell phone would be a necessity, but if there were cheap walkie-talkies that actually worked, mom would have been less worried about us. But she was never too worried to let us go outside to play.
Blogologue's 3.9 year old son wants a phone, but doesn't know how to ask daddy for it. So he hacked blogologue's /. account and posted the question. Later he is going to spike his coffee, and make him think he wrote the post himself during a late night of slashdot reading.
That makes the most sense.
You do realize these devices are literally like crack to them, right?
You mean these 4 year olds are smoking cell phones? Wowzer.
Better smoking it than heating it up on a spoon and injecting that shit.
My daughter had one at that age. Every so often it rang, and Barbie talked to my daughter. Usually something along the lines of, "Let's go ... to a party ... today," or "Do you want to go ... to the beach ... this weekend?" So, basically, three part sentences, randomized. My daughter was just 3 or 4, and knew it wasn't really Barbie, but she would talk to her each time Barbie called.
One day, after the phone rang and Barbie and my daughter had a chat, my mother-in-law asked is a very confused and exasperated voice "Who keeps calling her?"
She actually thought it was a real phone. She was in her 80s at the time, so it wasn't very surprising. But it was hilarious. :^)
Actually, "the guy" can't say what he likes. There are laws about that in the workplace too, especially if he is the boss/owner of the business.
The irony of saying "People can't be free if people are allowed to infringe on the freedom of others", while insisting people can be forced to associate with those they don't want to, is lost on so many people.
We never learned the cue/queue pair in school. No one uses "queue" in America for general day-to-day conversation. And only so many know what the word is when talking about printing.
As for using "cue" correctly, I see/hear it often enough, both in relation to playing pool and acting.
Exactly. You would use the laws to force someone to act a certain way, and to associate with people he would rather not associate with.
He's saying "What if your boss told you to stop working for him, because you promoted homosexuality?"
Does your gay gene make you stupid? Or are you just from a family of idiots?
Quoting an informative post, because someone doesn't like it and modded it down.
You must be too young to have 1st-hand experience in this bit of history.
First, Nixon was very far to the left in the Republican party (he implemented wage & price controls and created the EPA while hugging Communist China and trying to make nuclear arms deals with Russia that favored the Russians) but he got the support of the GOP base because [1] he had a history of fierce anti-communist action earlier in his career and [2] in each election cycle he cozied up to the social conservative base... not very hard to do given that BOTH parties used to be primarily Christian, with Democrats having somewhat higher penetration onto the Jewish communities. NOBODY in national politics back then would publicly embrace ANYTHING homo-, or drug-, or abortion- or athist-related.
Barry Goldwater was not a prophet, nor was he a conservative... the man was very Ron Paul in his views (i.e. a Libertarian) though not the same in his public persona. Barry had the strong support of a certain political block in his earlier races, and when they came back to him years later to beg him to run for president as a standard-bearer for conservatives within the Republican party he felt morally obliged to do it... which is why he ran that race (and his lack of desire to actually win was probably part of the problem with that campaign). The young conservatives at that time begged Barry to run because the establishment GOP was pushing the usual Rinos (not called that back then) like Mitt Romney's dad and the Rockefellers, none of whom were for smaller, constitutional government.
The modern GOP is FAR to the left of the GOP of 1980 (many modern Republicans have gone Libertarian on social issues like abortion, gay stuff, and half the current Republicans in the senate just voted to fund Obamacare...) you just think the GOP has moved right because the modern Democrats have moved so far left so fast that the gap between parties has grown very wide. Just 8 years ago, EVERY Democrat running for President was opposed to "gay marriage"... Democrat President Bill Clinton signed DOMA and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policies. During the 1980s Democrats used to scream and hollar and stomp about deficits and they repeatedly demanded Reagan negotiate with them on debt cieling limits... now they yell that the limits do not matter and they are printing money faster than anybody in history ever has...
There were 6 predicted, and 10 happened.
Good to know. I mis-remembered it the other way.
Sandy was category 3, though it had weakened to category 1 when it hit the US. It was the 2nd costliest Atlantic hurricane ever.
Costly because of where it hit and the long build to storm surge caused a lot of flooding and damage. If it had hit Florida and died over Georgia, no one outside would have cared much*, because it just was not a powerful storm.
.
*I say this because no one cares much whenever Florida gets hit by a hurricane. It's expected to happen.
How many were predicted? How many were predicted to his US mainland? How many did hit US mainland?
And Sandy was a Category 1 storm. Ignoring all the hype, the only reason anyone cares about Sandy is because it hit New York instead of Florida or Texas.
Spot.
But everyone knows that.
Or fall back to debian.
I'm waiting for Debian does Dallas :D
Says the Big (and Hairy) End-ian. @===3
Go cork yourself.
I didn't say "Execute all drunk drivers." Read it again.
No, have a real 'drunk driving is bad' law. None of that suspended license stuff.
1) If you are driving drunk, and kill someone, you are executed. No exceptions.
2) Do you even need another rule?
That is the only drunk driving law we need. It would weed out those who can't handle their inebriation, slowly but surely.
That's how Hawaii is. All traffic tickets are paid to the state, and the state gives money to the county/city police forces in the annual budget. The cops really have no financial interest to give tickets, and rarely do. If you get a ticket, and challenge it, the cop has no financial interest in showing up in court.
One guy I worked with got a ticket for going over 100mph on the highway at night. After two or three court dates with the cop not showing up, the judge dropped it.
I got pulled over one time for going over 40 in a 25 zone, and got a warning. That area always had speeders though, because it was right in front of the police sub-station. Cops there are either about to out on patrol, or are just getting back from hours of patrol. Neither group wants to pull someone over at that moment. That one day, they had a speed trap set up. But, as I said, I only got a warning. (I honestly thought the zone was 35, and told the cop that. I don't know if that mattered, and agree that it shouldn't have.)
Thank you for the helpful information. This topic could use more of that.
You "don't see why it is a terrible law" except for the part of it you don't like. But surely people still break that part in ways you don't like, as opposed to the way you would do it.
How about assholes like me who don't believe the government has the right to tell me to wear a seatbelt? I don't believe the public safety is tied to whether I'm belted in, and I don't believe your insurance rates are reason enough to make my personal safety decision illegal.
Mostly because social mores reflected our fear of being murdered and were embodied in religious edicts not to murder... and the lack of fatal traffic accidents in our hunter-gatherer days.
Oh.... recidivism you say? Compare DUI repeat offenders vs murder.
How many DUI repeat offenders have actually killed someone? How many murderers have actually killed someone?
Wait, that's not the comparison you wanted? It's the one that makes the most sense.
I could indeed offer some actual evidence, from scientists and non-scientists. But you apparently have your mind made up, and are stating you'll dismiss anything that isn't from paleoclimatologists (as if only they can point out bad science in Mann's work), just as I dismiss anything from Michael Mann himself.
Anyhow, thanks for the reply.
Whoops. Didn't proofread well enough. First line left out a couple words. Should have been:
Except for the fact that the post I originally replied to said "had there been no ice 100 years ago, there would be no polar bears."