There is a very fine line between reasonable physical punishment, and doing too much.
To the point made that children respect parents that spank... I was also spanked as a child, and there was nothing that helped my father earn more disrespect from me and my siblings than his spankings.
I think one thing parents often underestimate is the magnitude of the effect that certain actions have on a child. It's kinda like spicy foods. I can easily tolerate and enjoy a sprinkle of Cayenne pepper on a dish, whereas even a tiny bit would be unbearable to the pristine palette of a child. Similarly, children have to build context for actions from scratch. When you start out teaching your child how to react to something negative by enforcing physical pain onto them, how is that child's view of appropriate punishment going to be centered? How does teaching a child that a negative physical response as a consequence of something bad he/she has done effect their longterm ability to cope with similar situations in the future?
I think when you start beating your child as an easier punishment than careful behavioral/psychological guidance & logical/rational thought, you start fostering a mindset where the child see's the wrong causality for actions. They are more afraid of the physical pain _you_ impose upon them, than the effects of the decision he/she just made. Sure, explaining this to child might not be easy, and will inevitably require consistency, but all teaching and guiding requires consistency, especially in children. A child will very quickly start to have no respect for the authority of the parent that spanks for everything, or spanks when there is no just cause for it. So is it any surprise that when the parental figure isn't around that a child will try to get away with anything they can? They've been taught that unless you're there to beat them, or they're afraid you'll find out, they will try to get away with anything they can. It's very similar to the way a child will react when there is no parental control, and is supported by the parent to do whatever he/she pleases. At least in the latter, the child has to make its own mistakes, except often the parent is there to bail them out, rather than teach them a lesson.
I see spanking as an excuse for a real solution to a problem. Too many parents think, 'I was spanked as a child and I'm just fine -- Tough love is a good thing'... which might be all well and fine, but I think that leads to the whole 'Do this because I said so' rationality that parents too often use to enforce their will upon their children, rather than educate the children with the tools that will allow them to make the right judgment call, on their own.
Then the buttons don't represent a specific item on the screen -- have it be Plus/Minus. Each click selects the next or last item, etc.
Or, have a dial with clicks. Each time you rotate the dial and it clicks, the highlighted item on the screen moves to the next candidate.
A touchscreen doesn't necessarily remove the issue of the name lining up with the checkbox (or the area to mark your selection). I can't tell you how many times I've used a touchscreen where the region you have to touch on the screen is anywhere from 20-75% off center from the item I think I'm selecting on the screen. If that space just happens to be the next line item or next checkbox, then I think I'm pressing one thing, but the touchscreen reads it as the next. Not good.
As suggested above, the only real solution to this is bigger virtual buttons, and more space between items.
Straw man? No, you've simply missed my point the entire way along, yet insisted on disagreeing throughout. (still? lol) As such, I can only assume you disagree with the main components of my argument. In an attempt to get you to articulate what you really mean, you want to argue semantics. If you wish to disagree with the content of my argument, then by all means, explicitly point out where my conclusions have been false.
Funny, that by your standards, if, in this scenario, I were to slow down to give an unreasonable 60 yards (or more, even) of space between the car in front of me, I would then be in your shoes, assuming the car behind me was an asshole.
This metaphor of leaving some set amount of space between 2 cars at all times (or else be a jackass) is completely nonsensical for you to even argue given the conditions of the hypothetical situation I've described.
Maybe this guy in front that is going too slow is really trying to catch the exit a mile down the road. When he sees the first exit sign, does he need to hit his brakes or slow down? Likely not, but this is what happens.
You pointed out earlier that by encroaching on his free space, I'm putting him at risk to not see me. (This is in fact opposite of the truth - objects get smaller as they move away from you - but not the point). Assuming this 'responsibility' of said driver to be aware of the car behind him, why would he willfully 'endanger' himself by not moving over to the right? Certainly if I could pass the car, I would, rendering the 'zomg you're a jackass' point moot. Furthermore, when the car in front of me slows down, for no apparent reason, it should be my assumption that the car will resume normal, legal speeds (remember there are minimums) momentarily. At that instant, it is my prerogative to assume that if this individual is not resuming speeds, I should then expect a turn signal, and the ensuing lane change, or see some obvious obstruction in the road ahead. Usually, long before this happens, I make note of the lane into which the car will have to merge. I'll help him out: flick my lights if it's OK to merge, etc, etc. All the while I'm gradually slowing down, trying to maintain reasonable momentum so that once this clueless individual makes up his mind, I don't have to burn through 150% more fuel to resume speed. This creates a predicament for me: Do I continue getting closer, continue trying to help the guy merge correctly, or do I switch lanes and let the car behind me deal with the same problem? Better yet, assuming I do pass on the right, now all the cars that have been slowed and are backing up, because this guy wants to exit and decided he needed to slow down a mile beforehand, also start passing on the right. Before you know it, cars are now backed up quite a distance behind the slow car in the passing lane, and cars even further back are merging into the quicker-moving right-hand lane to pass the obstruction. This is like how cholesterol builds up in arteries & the longer this goes on, the slower the slow car moves, because his exit is getting closer and closer, exacerbating the issue. In heavier traffic situations, you get complete stoppages and stop & go.
You defend the first car in this scenario, but for me to succumb to your logic and act accordingly, I would then in turn put the car directly behind me in the same predicament, and I would have every right to call _him_ a jackass. Which, let's not fool ourselves, allows the first driver to justify his own illogical rationale for staying in the lane, deferring the anxiety which was instantiated by the realization that the exit was forthcoming, and now has built up so much because of the impending pressure. Eventually the person will realize that unless he/she does simple things like use a turn signal, and assume the speed of the cars with which it must merge, he/she will miss the exit. Many people will simply drive through to the next exit in embarrassment.
It's much like watching inexperienced drivers attempt to para
From what I gather from your responses, you encourage drivers to:
pass on the right (speaking US streets)
slower traffic move left (into the passing lane)
not pay attention to traffic around
not be courteous to other drivers
Overall, this is why I would suggest new technology that allows for car-car communication for simple things like switching lanes, passing, etc.
Because without it, you wind up being limited by the weakest link in the immediately surrounding traffic. When this is a nonsensical & discourteous individual who doesn't pay attention to the cars around him/her, people must resort to nonsensical solutions to cater to that individual.
define something unexpected.
you must be one of those really smart people that only watches for the brake lights of the car in front of you.
Frankly, if the idiot could pay attention and see when i flash my lights to politely ask him to get over, there would be no need for me to get any closer.
-- I'm not saying I do this when i can clearly not see in front of the car, or just know that under 99.999% of the time the car isn't going to suddenly slam into a brick wall that randomly appears...
And you know I sure am glad there is an invisible barrier between lanes, too. You know, so that when that unexpected thing happens, those cars in the lane directly next to you are protected.
No, I am not ashamed that if it comes to it, I'll get close enough to a car in front of me such that they can look in their rear view mirror (for once) and i can point to the right lane for them. And, if I rear-end them, then I'll pay for it. But that's ok with me because that's never happened.
All this theorizing about it really doesn't matter. Follow the simple rules you're always taught:
Slower traffic stay right
Pass on the left (and actually pass when you get into the lane - nothing worse than inching past that semi. As if somehow driving 5-10 mph faster will make it more unsafe...)
Use turn signals
make eye-contact when negotiating with other cars. Use headlights if eye contact is impossible
Based on your post I can surmise that you're one of those drivers who believes that they'll arrive to their destination faster if they're right on the bumper of the car in front of them, rather than a few car lengths back?
In a word, No. I will, however, get up on the bumper of an asshole not paying attention to the road and those around him, while in the passing lane (and not passing), while there is, apparently, 60yards of space between the cars to his right. In this case, the driver needs to simply get out of the way. If he wants to drive 50 in a 65, so be it, but don't make me pass you in the slow lane, which arguably causes a more dangerous situation than being closer than 60yards to the car in front of you.
I can't tell you how many times this very thing happens on 2-lane highways on my way to work in the morning. Surprise surprise when there is a traffic jam when no one wants to switch lanes and let cars flow more efficiently. (funny how that's just like money liquidity in a free market). And sometimes the car in the fast lane is a semi-truck trying to get into the slow lane to allow others to pass after a merge. But guess what happens? The cars in the slow lane don't allow the truck over, and then a whole caravan of cars start passing the semi. Now there are faster moving cars in the slow lane, and an accordion of brake lights and traffic bubbles starting behind the semi truck from cars that were traveling the speed limit (or, let's face it, above) that now have to slow down.
So to answer your question, I get on the ass of a driver being an idiot not because I think i will get there faster than the car 60 yards behind me, but because the driver in front needs to move, so i can drive faster to get where i need to be.
This practice alone shaves 10-20 minutes off my commute every morning.
This brings me to an interesting observation: If there is something in front of the car in front of me that is requiring that person to slow down that much, odds are I will have seen it also. If not, it's time for an eye/head exam. Alluded to in my post was the fact that most drivers, in my experience, do NOT pay attention to the road ahead. Personally, I catalog every car I can see. I keep my eye on them in my mirrors, I watch how they move in their lane, follow others, brake, accelerate, etc. All of these are indicators as to what that sheeple is likely to do next.
There is obviously a point where not everything that is possible under 95% of driving conditions is possible in traffic with idiots that brake just because they see brake lights (as opposed to actually needing to brake). I won't get into that...
That being said, I usually drive with one hand on the wheel (2 is a rare requirement). I'm not sure how else to explain txting while driving except that it does not, at all, distract _me_ from paying attention to the road. (reading a txt is different, and has to occur at intervals sometimes)
so you realistically think that on a highway of cars traveling 60mph, that every one of those cars should (read: can) be over 1/2 a football field's length away from the car in front of them?
You're the one living in a video game... one where reality is not represented well.
Some people like to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. When you're the idiot taking your Sunday morning drive during rush-hour traffic, slow-pokin' along in the fast(read: pass)-lane, when you should be passing or getting out of the way... I can imagine you getting your panties in a bunch and think everyone else on the road is driving in a video game.
Not to mention it would do people who are severely out of touch with the physical capabilities of their cars to learn to train their brain to better handle situations that might make them susceptible to panic and bad judgment before they get in a car, and try to act like others are idiots, when they're just scared and hit the brakes for no reason.
Video games are perfect for this. Push the limits of the abilities of your brain instead of making excuses.
The same goes for cell phones. I'm wonderfully adept at using a cell phone while driving: be it talking or texting, the biggest issue is being used to doing it. It's the same as turning the AC on, or checking the time on the radio. I don't need to look at my phone to operate it.
Hell, I'm surprised people don't whine and complain about how checking your rear & side mirrors while driving distract you from the road ahead. Oh wait, most people already don't do that;-) lawl
Slashdot Mirror
There is a very fine line between reasonable physical punishment, and doing too much.
... I was also spanked as a child, and there was nothing that helped my father earn more disrespect from me and my siblings than his spankings.
... which might be all well and fine, but I think that leads to the whole 'Do this because I said so' rationality that parents too often use to enforce their will upon their children, rather than educate the children with the tools that will allow them to make the right judgment call, on their own.
To the point made that children respect parents that spank
I think one thing parents often underestimate is the magnitude of the effect that certain actions have on a child. It's kinda like spicy foods. I can easily tolerate and enjoy a sprinkle of Cayenne pepper on a dish, whereas even a tiny bit would be unbearable to the pristine palette of a child. Similarly, children have to build context for actions from scratch. When you start out teaching your child how to react to something negative by enforcing physical pain onto them, how is that child's view of appropriate punishment going to be centered? How does teaching a child that a negative physical response as a consequence of something bad he/she has done effect their longterm ability to cope with similar situations in the future?
I think when you start beating your child as an easier punishment than careful behavioral/psychological guidance & logical/rational thought, you start fostering a mindset where the child see's the wrong causality for actions. They are more afraid of the physical pain _you_ impose upon them, than the effects of the decision he/she just made. Sure, explaining this to child might not be easy, and will inevitably require consistency, but all teaching and guiding requires consistency, especially in children. A child will very quickly start to have no respect for the authority of the parent that spanks for everything, or spanks when there is no just cause for it. So is it any surprise that when the parental figure isn't around that a child will try to get away with anything they can? They've been taught that unless you're there to beat them, or they're afraid you'll find out, they will try to get away with anything they can. It's very similar to the way a child will react when there is no parental control, and is supported by the parent to do whatever he/she pleases. At least in the latter, the child has to make its own mistakes, except often the parent is there to bail them out, rather than teach them a lesson.
I see spanking as an excuse for a real solution to a problem. Too many parents think, 'I was spanked as a child and I'm just fine -- Tough love is a good thing'
Then the buttons don't represent a specific item on the screen -- have it be Plus/Minus. Each click selects the next or last item, etc.
Or, have a dial with clicks. Each time you rotate the dial and it clicks, the highlighted item on the screen moves to the next candidate.
A touchscreen doesn't necessarily remove the issue of the name lining up with the checkbox (or the area to mark your selection). I can't tell you how many times I've used a touchscreen where the region you have to touch on the screen is anywhere from 20-75% off center from the item I think I'm selecting on the screen. If that space just happens to be the next line item or next checkbox, then I think I'm pressing one thing, but the touchscreen reads it as the next. Not good.
As suggested above, the only real solution to this is bigger virtual buttons, and more space between items.
Straw man? No, you've simply missed my point the entire way along, yet insisted on disagreeing throughout. (still? lol) As such, I can only assume you disagree with the main components of my argument. In an attempt to get you to articulate what you really mean, you want to argue semantics. If you wish to disagree with the content of my argument, then by all means, explicitly point out where my conclusions have been false.
Funny, that by your standards, if, in this scenario, I were to slow down to give an unreasonable 60 yards (or more, even) of space between the car in front of me, I would then be in your shoes, assuming the car behind me was an asshole.
This metaphor of leaving some set amount of space between 2 cars at all times (or else be a jackass) is completely nonsensical for you to even argue given the conditions of the hypothetical situation I've described.
Maybe this guy in front that is going too slow is really trying to catch the exit a mile down the road. When he sees the first exit sign, does he need to hit his brakes or slow down? Likely not, but this is what happens.
You pointed out earlier that by encroaching on his free space, I'm putting him at risk to not see me. (This is in fact opposite of the truth - objects get smaller as they move away from you - but not the point). Assuming this 'responsibility' of said driver to be aware of the car behind him, why would he willfully 'endanger' himself by not moving over to the right? Certainly if I could pass the car, I would, rendering the 'zomg you're a jackass' point moot. Furthermore, when the car in front of me slows down, for no apparent reason, it should be my assumption that the car will resume normal, legal speeds (remember there are minimums) momentarily. At that instant, it is my prerogative to assume that if this individual is not resuming speeds, I should then expect a turn signal, and the ensuing lane change, or see some obvious obstruction in the road ahead. Usually, long before this happens, I make note of the lane into which the car will have to merge. I'll help him out: flick my lights if it's OK to merge, etc, etc. All the while I'm gradually slowing down, trying to maintain reasonable momentum so that once this clueless individual makes up his mind, I don't have to burn through 150% more fuel to resume speed. This creates a predicament for me: Do I continue getting closer, continue trying to help the guy merge correctly, or do I switch lanes and let the car behind me deal with the same problem? Better yet, assuming I do pass on the right, now all the cars that have been slowed and are backing up, because this guy wants to exit and decided he needed to slow down a mile beforehand, also start passing on the right. Before you know it, cars are now backed up quite a distance behind the slow car in the passing lane, and cars even further back are merging into the quicker-moving right-hand lane to pass the obstruction. This is like how cholesterol builds up in arteries & the longer this goes on, the slower the slow car moves, because his exit is getting closer and closer, exacerbating the issue. In heavier traffic situations, you get complete stoppages and stop & go.
You defend the first car in this scenario, but for me to succumb to your logic and act accordingly, I would then in turn put the car directly behind me in the same predicament, and I would have every right to call _him_ a jackass. Which, let's not fool ourselves, allows the first driver to justify his own illogical rationale for staying in the lane, deferring the anxiety which was instantiated by the realization that the exit was forthcoming, and now has built up so much because of the impending pressure. Eventually the person will realize that unless he/she does simple things like use a turn signal, and assume the speed of the cars with which it must merge, he/she will miss the exit. Many people will simply drive through to the next exit in embarrassment.
It's much like watching inexperienced drivers attempt to para
But you're slow to understand my point. Still.
From what I gather from your responses, you encourage drivers to:
Overall, this is why I would suggest new technology that allows for car-car communication for simple things like switching lanes, passing, etc.
Because without it, you wind up being limited by the weakest link in the immediately surrounding traffic. When this is a nonsensical & discourteous individual who doesn't pay attention to the cars around him/her, people must resort to nonsensical solutions to cater to that individual.
Frankly, if the idiot could pay attention and see when i flash my lights to politely ask him to get over, there would be no need for me to get any closer.
-- I'm not saying I do this when i can clearly not see in front of the car, or just know that under 99.999% of the time the car isn't going to suddenly slam into a brick wall that randomly appears...
And you know I sure am glad there is an invisible barrier between lanes, too. You know, so that when that unexpected thing happens, those cars in the lane directly next to you are protected.
No, I am not ashamed that if it comes to it, I'll get close enough to a car in front of me such that they can look in their rear view mirror (for once) and i can point to the right lane for them. And, if I rear-end them, then I'll pay for it. But that's ok with me because that's never happened.
All this theorizing about it really doesn't matter. Follow the simple rules you're always taught:
It's not rocket science.
Based on your post I can surmise that you're one of those drivers who believes that they'll arrive to their destination faster if they're right on the bumper of the car in front of them, rather than a few car lengths back?
In a word, No. I will, however, get up on the bumper of an asshole not paying attention to the road and those around him, while in the passing lane (and not passing), while there is, apparently, 60yards of space between the cars to his right. In this case, the driver needs to simply get out of the way. If he wants to drive 50 in a 65, so be it, but don't make me pass you in the slow lane, which arguably causes a more dangerous situation than being closer than 60yards to the car in front of you.
I can't tell you how many times this very thing happens on 2-lane highways on my way to work in the morning. Surprise surprise when there is a traffic jam when no one wants to switch lanes and let cars flow more efficiently. (funny how that's just like money liquidity in a free market). And sometimes the car in the fast lane is a semi-truck trying to get into the slow lane to allow others to pass after a merge. But guess what happens? The cars in the slow lane don't allow the truck over, and then a whole caravan of cars start passing the semi. Now there are faster moving cars in the slow lane, and an accordion of brake lights and traffic bubbles starting behind the semi truck from cars that were traveling the speed limit (or, let's face it, above) that now have to slow down.
So to answer your question, I get on the ass of a driver being an idiot not because I think i will get there faster than the car 60 yards behind me, but because the driver in front needs to move, so i can drive faster to get where i need to be.
This practice alone shaves 10-20 minutes off my commute every morning.
This brings me to an interesting observation: If there is something in front of the car in front of me that is requiring that person to slow down that much, odds are I will have seen it also. If not, it's time for an eye/head exam. Alluded to in my post was the fact that most drivers, in my experience, do NOT pay attention to the road ahead. Personally, I catalog every car I can see. I keep my eye on them in my mirrors, I watch how they move in their lane, follow others, brake, accelerate, etc. All of these are indicators as to what that sheeple is likely to do next.
There is obviously a point where not everything that is possible under 95% of driving conditions is possible in traffic with idiots that brake just because they see brake lights (as opposed to actually needing to brake). I won't get into that ...
That being said, I usually drive with one hand on the wheel (2 is a rare requirement). I'm not sure how else to explain txting while driving except that it does not, at all, distract _me_ from paying attention to the road. (reading a txt is different, and has to occur at intervals sometimes)
so you realistically think that on a highway of cars traveling 60mph, that every one of those cars should (read: can) be over 1/2 a football field's length away from the car in front of them? You're the one living in a video game ... one where reality is not represented well.
Some people like to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. When you're the idiot taking your Sunday morning drive during rush-hour traffic, slow-pokin' along in the fast(read: pass)-lane, when you should be passing or getting out of the way ... I can imagine you getting your panties in a bunch and think everyone else on the road is driving in a video game.
Not to mention it would do people who are severely out of touch with the physical capabilities of their cars to learn to train their brain to better handle situations that might make them susceptible to panic and bad judgment before they get in a car, and try to act like others are idiots, when they're just scared and hit the brakes for no reason.
Video games are perfect for this. Push the limits of the abilities of your brain instead of making excuses.
The same goes for cell phones. I'm wonderfully adept at using a cell phone while driving: be it talking or texting, the biggest issue is being used to doing it. It's the same as turning the AC on, or checking the time on the radio. I don't need to look at my phone to operate it.
Hell, I'm surprised people don't whine and complain about how checking your rear & side mirrors while driving distract you from the road ahead. Oh wait, most people already don't do that ;-) lawl