We're talking about unemancipated teenagers, not adults who have real world responsibilities. A teen without a car most likely doesn't need a job, and probably, when it comes right down to it, has more important things (in the long run) that they could be doing with that time.
Put your straw man away and read my comment in the context of the article.
That's why they have this thing called a "bus". Perhaps you've seen one? They're large, and generally yellow.
And, to pre-empt the inevitable response of "but the nearest bus stop is 5 miles from my house!": I grew up in exactly that situation, and my mom drove me to school. Being a parent is inherently inconvenient. If you aren't ready for the responsibility, don't have kids.
Work requires someone to *drive* you there.
If they don't have a car, they probably don't need a job that bad. I'm all for "learning the value of hard work" and all that, but when it comes right down to it, teens don't need jobs.
Right, because there are so many cops in the world with so much time on their hands.
A little hint from the spouse of a highway patrol officer: they don't care about speeding, per se. They care about stuff that causes accidents; namely reckless driving and drunk driving. If you're just speeding, but not to the point where it would be considered reckless, they'll usually let it go (unless, of course, it's a really slow day or they have some other reason to be interested in you, like maybe you look like someone who's likely to have drugs on them).
Were I a teen, my parents would never know how fast I'm going.
Were I your parent, I wouldn't allow you to drive unless gps was turned on (assuming, of course, that I had any reason to believe such monitoring was warranted). And the additional punishment for lying (which is effectively what you'd be doing by turning it off, IMO) would be severe.
It's interesting to me that yours is indicative of the general response here. Makes me wonder what happened to "parenting".
"I was speeding, dad? 1800mph you say, in the saturn?"
"Ha ha! Very clever! By the way, while you were out I took a little trip down to the DMV and had your provisional license revoked, merely by signing a single piece of paper. Don't worry, though, you'll be able to take the test again when you're 18. Oh, and you're grounded."
2. If the system returns nothing at all, then it is obvious that the kid has disabled it - take away the keys/license.
I'm disappointed that I had to scroll down this far to find this basic piece of wisdom. It's sad that so many seem to just take it for granted that the kid can disable the device without any repercussions.
I think it would be great to have the cops notified of somone driving like that and doing something about it before someone get's hurt or killed.
It's a nice idea, but a waste of time, at least in most metropolitan areas. There just aren't enough cops on the road to make effective use of the information they already get from other drivers calling in on their cell phones.
The other day my wife was coming home from work (swing shift) and ended up behind a drunk. She called 911 on her cell phone and followed them as they weaved down the road at well over the speed limit for almost 50 miles, keeping the operator updated on their position, but all the Highway Patrol officers in the area were already too busy cleaning up accidents that had already happened to do anything about it.
Eventually my wife had to turn around and come home, as she was well past our exit and was already quite fatigued from her own 10 hour shift as a CHP officer.
Anyway, I don't think I'd sign up for such a service. I think it's much more important to develope a relationship of communication and trust with your child.
However, if I did decide to avail myself of it, the hammer would certainly come down if my daughter disabled it. When it comes down to it, she is my responsibility until age 18, and the law gives me certain rights to allow me to deal with the situation. Not only is their license provisional, and can be invalidated by the parent at will, but everything they think they own actually belongs to their parents.
So, in my case: her license would be gone and her car would be sold. That might seem harsh to some, but bear in mind that she would have done it with full knowledge of the consequences. Whenever possible I try and make sure that her choices are fully informed.
Why do they need to study history? Or literature? Or any of the other myriad topics we've decided they need to learn?
To understand the world around them.
Math is not a specialized field. It's the language that best describes the world we live in. It's also the language of logical thought and problem solving.
Besides, regarding computers doing it automatically: remember GIGO? It's as true today as it was 20 years ago, and the unknowledgable are a lot more likely to suffer the consequences.
The "solution" linked to in the discussion you pointed to through google is already linked in the origional question, immediately followed by "but I can't seem to get it running to my liking." Indeed, had you actually read the discussion you pointed to, you might have noticed that it's described as "not a full solution".
So, it HAS already been looked at and declared inadequate.
Didn't tutor any freshmen while you were in college, did you?
Most of them can't even multiply by 10s without going for their calculator, because they've been allowed to use calculators in class since 2nd or 3rd grade in some cases. It's pretty hard to learn algebra when you don't really understand arithmatic.
The EULA is pivotal. Because of their EULA Direct Revenue can say they removed AvenueMedia's software with the users consent. For AvenueMedia to have a leg to stand on, they first have to prove that click-through EULAs aren't valid. Otherwise, Direct Revenue has a strong arguement that their software is just doing what the user told it to.
There should be a note on the submitter page for Slashdot reminding people to first read the question they're responding to and checking the top links google turns up, before claiming google has the answer.
Anyhow, the solution you point out has already been addressed as inadequate. "Ask Slashdot" fails again, responding without reading the question 24/7.
Have you actually used Microsoft's grammar checker? I have to turn it off, as it's constantly trying to "correct" perfectly good sentences (which I wouldn't mind if its "corrections" were even close to reasonable).
The real problem, though, is that computers do the work for you, so there's no real need to actually learn it. You see the same problem with kids who're allowed to use calculators in math class.
Hell i still fear the man today 'cause he could snap me like a twig, but i respect him because he doesn't abuse that.
And you consider this to be a healthy parent-child relationship?
They understand that doing this, this happens. You throw a toy across the room in a fit and break something that isn't another toy, you get your ass blistered and maybe a time out. You hit mommy or daddy, you get your ass blistered and you go to bed early for the next week. They understand negative reinforcement, i do this, mom and dad are upset, i get a spanking, it hurts. You do the right the first few times and there won't be any more occurances of this.
Again, the spanking is totally unnecessary. There are plenty of other methods of negative reinforcement that are equally effective.
Time outs are fine, if YOU have the time to enforce them. But parent or not, when you're in WalMart getting groceries and the kid is throwing a fit, promising a time out when you get home isn't going to do much good, and there isn't really a way to instigate it in the store.
Being a parent is inconvenient.
After my daughter was born, and my wife had recovered a bit, the doctor came in to check on us. When he left, I think he summarized our new situation quite well: "Congratulations, now you get to carry luggage with you everywhere you go."
The few times my daughter has started to throw fit in the store, my wife or I have taken her out to the car, or even directly home. Yeah, it was inconvenient for us, but we only had to do it a couple of times.
At 4.5 years, she's one of the most well behaved kids you're likely to meet. She knows the meaning of the word 'ettiquete', and understands how it applies differently to different situations. She knows how to behave at the store or in a restaurant, all despite the fact that she's never been spanked.
Nor do we promise her bribes, though we do make a point of rewarding her occasionally for good behavior. This is more important than punishment for bad behavior, as positive reinforcement is always more effective than negative reinforcement, but you have to be careful with the bribery or you end up with a kid who thinks the world owes them.
Anyway, to me the inconvenience arguement smacks of lazy parents.
Like I said, you've got the right idea, but hitting them really isn't necessary.
You've got the right idea, but hitting them is totally unnecessary.
The key is consistency. You tell them what will happen if they keep doing what they're doing, and then you actually do it. Time out or taking toys away is just as effective as spanking as long as you're consistent, and don't carry the negative side effects, such as: it's easier to dislocate childrens joints, which you might want to think about next time you pick your nephew up by one arm; sharp jarring, especially from being hit or slapped in the head or face can cause brain damage; and, of course, kids who get hit at home are more likely to behave violently (hitting others, getting in fights, etc).
My guess is that the question is largely irrelevant, at least from Thomson's point of view. The technology is very useful to Thomson, and it's really just gravy if someone else wants to license it from them (granted, it could be a lot of gravy, but that isn't why they developed it).
You see, Thomson sells stuff under 4 brand names: consumer electronics are sold under Thomson (mainly in Europe) and RCA, and content production products under Technicolor and Grass Valley (a big name in TV production equipment). One of the areas they're particularly strong is Digital Video Servers, most of which are MPEG based. One of the big limitations on what you can do with those servers, especially when you're dealing with HD, is the bandwidth of the storage media. Anything that reduces the amount of bandwidth any given feature requires is good stuff. So this is a very useful technology for Thomson, and of course it will be a must have for anyone wanting to communicate with Thomson/Grass Valley video servers (which would be anyone in professional video production).
It may or may not take off in the consumer market, but rest assured it will do just fine in the pro market.
Just because they aren't pushing the technological envelope doesn't mean they aren't contributing. They might say we're the parasites, taking so much more than we really need.
They aren't Luddites, they just feel it's spiritually important to keep things simple, and not get so caught up in modern consumerism that they forget what's important.
IIRC, they have a counsel of sorts to deal with things like this, where something comes along that is so much better and safer, but no more complicated, comes along. Having grown up off-grid, and having plenty of experience with kerosene lamps and candles, I can definately appreciate where these guys are coming from.
Wrong. c sends them the message that people like what their doing, they just need to find a way to get more of them to hand over money. Only b and d send them the message that they're doing something wrong.
It really is quite obvious. It's shocking to me that you still don't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about unemancipated teenagers, not adults who have real world responsibilities. A teen without a car most likely doesn't need a job, and probably, when it comes right down to it, has more important things (in the long run) that they could be doing with that time.
Put your straw man away and read my comment in the context of the article.
I am a parent, and I couldn't have said it better.
Yes, OPTIONAL.
School requires someone *drive* you there.
That's why they have this thing called a "bus". Perhaps you've seen one? They're large, and generally yellow.
And, to pre-empt the inevitable response of "but the nearest bus stop is 5 miles from my house!": I grew up in exactly that situation, and my mom drove me to school. Being a parent is inherently inconvenient. If you aren't ready for the responsibility, don't have kids.
Work requires someone to *drive* you there.
If they don't have a car, they probably don't need a job that bad. I'm all for "learning the value of hard work" and all that, but when it comes right down to it, teens don't need jobs.
Right, because there are so many cops in the world with so much time on their hands.
A little hint from the spouse of a highway patrol officer: they don't care about speeding, per se. They care about stuff that causes accidents; namely reckless driving and drunk driving. If you're just speeding, but not to the point where it would be considered reckless, they'll usually let it go (unless, of course, it's a really slow day or they have some other reason to be interested in you, like maybe you look like someone who's likely to have drugs on them).
Were I a teen, my parents would never know how fast I'm going.
Were I your parent, I wouldn't allow you to drive unless gps was turned on (assuming, of course, that I had any reason to believe such monitoring was warranted). And the additional punishment for lying (which is effectively what you'd be doing by turning it off, IMO) would be severe.
It's interesting to me that yours is indicative of the general response here. Makes me wonder what happened to "parenting".
"I was speeding, dad? 1800mph you say, in the saturn?"
"Ha ha! Very clever! By the way, while you were out I took a little trip down to the DMV and had your provisional license revoked, merely by signing a single piece of paper. Don't worry, though, you'll be able to take the test again when you're 18. Oh, and you're grounded."
2. If the system returns nothing at all, then it is obvious that the kid has disabled it - take away the keys/license.
I'm disappointed that I had to scroll down this far to find this basic piece of wisdom. It's sad that so many seem to just take it for granted that the kid can disable the device without any repercussions.
I think it would be great to have the cops notified of somone driving like that and doing something about it before someone get's hurt or killed.
It's a nice idea, but a waste of time, at least in most metropolitan areas. There just aren't enough cops on the road to make effective use of the information they already get from other drivers calling in on their cell phones.
The other day my wife was coming home from work (swing shift) and ended up behind a drunk. She called 911 on her cell phone and followed them as they weaved down the road at well over the speed limit for almost 50 miles, keeping the operator updated on their position, but all the Highway Patrol officers in the area were already too busy cleaning up accidents that had already happened to do anything about it.
Eventually my wife had to turn around and come home, as she was well past our exit and was already quite fatigued from her own 10 hour shift as a CHP officer.
Anyway, I don't think I'd sign up for such a service. I think it's much more important to develope a relationship of communication and trust with your child.
However, if I did decide to avail myself of it, the hammer would certainly come down if my daughter disabled it. When it comes down to it, she is my responsibility until age 18, and the law gives me certain rights to allow me to deal with the situation. Not only is their license provisional, and can be invalidated by the parent at will, but everything they think they own actually belongs to their parents.
So, in my case: her license would be gone and her car would be sold. That might seem harsh to some, but bear in mind that she would have done it with full knowledge of the consequences. Whenever possible I try and make sure that her choices are fully informed.
Why do they need to study history? Or literature? Or any of the other myriad topics we've decided they need to learn?
To understand the world around them.
Math is not a specialized field. It's the language that best describes the world we live in. It's also the language of logical thought and problem solving.
Besides, regarding computers doing it automatically: remember GIGO? It's as true today as it was 20 years ago, and the unknowledgable are a lot more likely to suffer the consequences.
WRONG!
The "solution" linked to in the discussion you pointed to through google is already linked in the origional question, immediately followed by "but I can't seem to get it running to my liking." Indeed, had you actually read the discussion you pointed to, you might have noticed that it's described as "not a full solution".
So, it HAS already been looked at and declared inadequate.
Nice job of totally missing my point.
Why don't you reread what I wrote, and then think about how easy it would be to learn calculus if you didn't understand factoring.
Didn't tutor any freshmen while you were in college, did you?
Most of them can't even multiply by 10s without going for their calculator, because they've been allowed to use calculators in class since 2nd or 3rd grade in some cases. It's pretty hard to learn algebra when you don't really understand arithmatic.
I don't think it'll be difficult to find a judge who isn't a Linux user ;)
The EULA is pivotal. Because of their EULA Direct Revenue can say they removed AvenueMedia's software with the users consent. For AvenueMedia to have a leg to stand on, they first have to prove that click-through EULAs aren't valid. Otherwise, Direct Revenue has a strong arguement that their software is just doing what the user told it to.
There should be a note on the submitter page for Slashdot reminding people to first read the question they're responding to and checking the top links google turns up, before claiming google has the answer.
Anyhow, the solution you point out has already been addressed as inadequate. "Ask Slashdot" fails again, responding without reading the question 24/7.
Why do I never have mod points when I see comments like these?
Have you actually used Microsoft's grammar checker? I have to turn it off, as it's constantly trying to "correct" perfectly good sentences (which I wouldn't mind if its "corrections" were even close to reasonable).
The real problem, though, is that computers do the work for you, so there's no real need to actually learn it. You see the same problem with kids who're allowed to use calculators in math class.
Hell i still fear the man today 'cause he could snap me like a twig, but i respect him because he doesn't abuse that.
And you consider this to be a healthy parent-child relationship?
They understand that doing this, this happens. You throw a toy across the room in a fit and break something that isn't another toy, you get your ass blistered and maybe a time out. You hit mommy or daddy, you get your ass blistered and you go to bed early for the next week. They understand negative reinforcement, i do this, mom and dad are upset, i get a spanking, it hurts. You do the right the first few times and there won't be any more occurances of this.
Again, the spanking is totally unnecessary. There are plenty of other methods of negative reinforcement that are equally effective.
Time outs are fine, if YOU have the time to enforce them. But parent or not, when you're in WalMart getting groceries and the kid is throwing a fit, promising a time out when you get home isn't going to do much good, and there isn't really a way to instigate it in the store.
Being a parent is inconvenient.
After my daughter was born, and my wife had recovered a bit, the doctor came in to check on us. When he left, I think he summarized our new situation quite well: "Congratulations, now you get to carry luggage with you everywhere you go."
The few times my daughter has started to throw fit in the store, my wife or I have taken her out to the car, or even directly home. Yeah, it was inconvenient for us, but we only had to do it a couple of times.
At 4.5 years, she's one of the most well behaved kids you're likely to meet. She knows the meaning of the word 'ettiquete', and understands how it applies differently to different situations. She knows how to behave at the store or in a restaurant, all despite the fact that she's never been spanked.
Nor do we promise her bribes, though we do make a point of rewarding her occasionally for good behavior. This is more important than punishment for bad behavior, as positive reinforcement is always more effective than negative reinforcement, but you have to be careful with the bribery or you end up with a kid who thinks the world owes them.
Anyway, to me the inconvenience arguement smacks of lazy parents.
Like I said, you've got the right idea, but hitting them really isn't necessary.
I love my parents. I'm glad they punished me physically when I needed it.
Oedipal complex with a spanking fetish?
You've got the right idea, but hitting them is totally unnecessary.
The key is consistency. You tell them what will happen if they keep doing what they're doing, and then you actually do it. Time out or taking toys away is just as effective as spanking as long as you're consistent, and don't carry the negative side effects, such as: it's easier to dislocate childrens joints, which you might want to think about next time you pick your nephew up by one arm; sharp jarring, especially from being hit or slapped in the head or face can cause brain damage; and, of course, kids who get hit at home are more likely to behave violently (hitting others, getting in fights, etc).
My guess is that the question is largely irrelevant, at least from Thomson's point of view. The technology is very useful to Thomson, and it's really just gravy if someone else wants to license it from them (granted, it could be a lot of gravy, but that isn't why they developed it).
You see, Thomson sells stuff under 4 brand names: consumer electronics are sold under Thomson (mainly in Europe) and RCA, and content production products under Technicolor and Grass Valley (a big name in TV production equipment). One of the areas they're particularly strong is Digital Video Servers, most of which are MPEG based. One of the big limitations on what you can do with those servers, especially when you're dealing with HD, is the bandwidth of the storage media. Anything that reduces the amount of bandwidth any given feature requires is good stuff. So this is a very useful technology for Thomson, and of course it will be a must have for anyone wanting to communicate with Thomson/Grass Valley video servers (which would be anyone in professional video production).
It may or may not take off in the consumer market, but rest assured it will do just fine in the pro market.
I'm pretty sure HP builds the machines themselves. Who, exactly, would be imposing the MS tax on them?
Just because they aren't pushing the technological envelope doesn't mean they aren't contributing. They might say we're the parasites, taking so much more than we really need.
They aren't Luddites, they just feel it's spiritually important to keep things simple, and not get so caught up in modern consumerism that they forget what's important.
IIRC, they have a counsel of sorts to deal with things like this, where something comes along that is so much better and safer, but no more complicated, comes along. Having grown up off-grid, and having plenty of experience with kerosene lamps and candles, I can definately appreciate where these guys are coming from.
You're either an idiot or a troll. Either way, I'm done with this.
Wrong. c sends them the message that people like what their doing, they just need to find a way to get more of them to hand over money. Only b and d send them the message that they're doing something wrong.
It really is quite obvious. It's shocking to me that you still don't get it.