Why must they be replaced? "Having nobody in office is better than having YOU in office" is a powerful message. And honestly, shit is NOT going to fall to pieces just because we don't have the requisite meddling douche in office for a couple months. Grow a spine. You don't need these people that badly.
You just taught him that it's always you who withdraws him from something. It's therefore natural for him that you also were responsible for the show stopping. And he's annoyed at you taking away things from him.
It is way more complicated than that. The rules are well-known and consistently enforced, not just by me but by the other adults in his life. He knows ahead of time what the time limitation is, he's told before the time limit is over that the limit is about to expire, and he acknowledges it. It's not an instant flip-out because dad snatched the device from his hands, it takes more time than that, but he definitely gets grumpy about it.
It's strongly suspected that visual media is involved in attention problems. I know how the tablet has affected me. I am capable of putting two and two together. As far as your inference that because of my tablet rule I must be a serial depriver who doesn't let my kid do anything, you just took about a mile-long leap into thin air with that one.
Finally I bought a pair of walkie talkies with a 30+ mile range so that she could keep track of me and know if I'd done something exceedingly stupid like fall off a cliff or argue territory with a bull.
So if you did fall off a cliff, the plan was to grab the handset and scream into it on your way down? What a wonderful way to part with your wife!
Sorry, no. I will not permit a four year old to "zone out" into a media-connected device. Honestly, I'd rather he not use the thing at all, but I'm not the only decision-maker in his life so I compromise on it.
I allowed him to watch a 30 minute Charlie Brown Halloween movie back in October. When the show was over, he flipped his lid, punched me and demanded that I somehow make the show continue. That sort of behavior is called "withdrawal."
We observe clear addictive behavior in adults who use the Internet to consume media. Being able to carry the Internet with you on your phone or tablet obviously exaggerates these effects. So you really should be asking yourself, does it make sense to not only expose, but force, children to use devices that clearly lead to addictive patterns of behavior when used by adults?
I own a tablet, and I find that I can no longer entertain myself effectively by reading a book. Instead of grabbing a book I impulsively reach for the tablet. Instead of sitting down for two hours to work on something in a concentrated way, I find myself becoming distracted regularly and goofing off with the tablet. My wife and I both exhibit these addictions and we will often sit on opposite sides of the house, isolated, browsing random shit online. Yes, a computer can do all these things but you don't sit at a computer 24/7 (well, most people don't). With a phone or tablet it's trivial to carry the addictive substance with you everywhere you go.
I allow my older son to use the tablet for about five minutes per day. And even that is perhaps too much. When it's time to stop, he gets combative and irritable. It reminds me a lot of how I used to behave when I couldn't smoke a cigarette. The only way you could not notice that this is a bad thing is if your head is up your ass.
No, we should not be exposing children to this any more than necessary, and we should definitely not REQUIRE it!
Just because bad things are known to happen in the gladiator pit does not magically excuse you when bad things predictably happen to a person who should not have been put there in the first place.
No, all you have to do is buy another drive and restore it on to that drive.
So, all I have to do is open my computer, swap my main disk out, try the restore, then swap it back? That's not exactly a low-risk operation for an average person. I ask again, what's the solution for the home user? The solution should not involve performing surgery on my computer.
Sounded like a cool app to me. If you do something idiotic like publish your location in real time on the Internet for the whole world to see, you need a nice kick in the pants to help you understand just how much of a fool you are. I actually think we need more apps like this, they help remind people why some of us "crazies" actually value our privacy.
So, how does a home user test the restore? Seems like chicken-and-egg. To test the restore I need to wipe the drive. To wipe the drive I better have a working backup. To know I've got a working backup I need to... test the restore?
IMO, either you rely on common sense to figure things out, or you rely on precisely worded laws. There is no mixture. If the judge is going to use "common sense" then why does he need laws to refer to?
Seriously? I could easily debate for DAYS on what "one subject" means, what "scope" means, and what "object" means. That's so vaguely worded it's completely useless.
Don't YOU, as applicant, want to know if that's something I care about? Why would you want to remain uninformed about the atmosphere of the company? What if you quit your current job, start at the new place and only THEN discover that your boss is a racist homophobe? Now you're stuck in a really shitty job. Sticking your head in the sand during the interview is stupid.
It's not United States of China. China is FAR smarter than to chuck a future member of the workforce out of school because of a curse word. They need workers in order to continue climbing on top of the US and doing naughty things to us. Only arrogant, ignorant, decadent nations like our own could perpetrate stupidity like this.
Yeah. Kicking him out of school, the one thing that provides any sort of hope of actually obtaining a job in this "real world" you speak of, is definitely the thing to do. Let's add another stupid unemployed social-services-sucking possibly-homeless child to our fine country. I personally just cannot wait to begin paying for this person out of my own taxes. We really fucking need that. And when I say we need that, I mean we need it like we need a hole in the head.
This is nothing more than "Neener neener, you broke a rule so I'm gonna fucking BOOTSTOMP YOUR ENTIRE LIFE." It's called abuse of power, it's being perpetrated by adults on a child, and it's sick.
Did they also say that they would take away your RAM at some point if you did have enough?
Huh? That's not even a sensible analogy.
Among other important differences with you story is that an always on connection means that you lose the game whenever the publishers decides to turn it off.
True, and that's a very good reason to not buy this game, if you feel that's a risk. Your point? I don't see your point. Unless your point is "Blaaaarhghhghgh, Hulk Mad!" Because that's what it sounds like.
The fact that you are "concerned" at ANY level about the possibility of not being able to play a game for a little while is difficult to understand, especially when you have the free choice of not purchasing said game.
"They made it, but it's not what I wanted, so I'll stand over here and catch on fire." Ok, feel free to do that, I guess.
No, and why would you expect it? When the United States banned leaded gasoline in cars, did they federal government offer to buy your leaded-fuel vehicle at fair market value? Time passes, shit changes, life goes on. If it seems like a risk you don't feel comfortable taking, don't take it. It's not like they're being deceptive about it, it's right here on Slashdot.
Personally, I was mighty pissed in 1995 when I tried to install Might & Magic III and the program told me it didn't have enough memory to run. I mean the NERVE of those guys. They sell me a game but it turns out I need to have constant access to RAM in order to use it? What a load.
According to you, people would buy everything straight from the producer. That rarely happens in the real world. Everything you buy changes hands once, twice, maybe three or four times before you get to pick it up from the store shelf and put it in your shopping cart? Did you buy your car straight from Ford? No, you bought it from a Cal Worthington Ford. Did you buy your lettuce from the farmer? No, you bought it from Albertsons. Did Albertsons buy it from the farmer? No, they bought it from a distributor, who bought it from a co-op. Did you buy your Samsung TV directly from Samsung in Korea? No, and neither did Best Buy; they got it from the importer. Etc. etc.
In your dumb examples, the middlemen save the end customer actual money. You don't drive 50 miles to pick an apple from a tree, because that would cost $10.00 even with a decently efficient car. $10.00 of overhead to buy an apple is ridiculous, that's why you have supermarkets. It's more expensive if you want to buy direct.
In the case of online ticket sales, what cost is the middleman saving you from? The cost of clicking a button? The middleman is pure inefficiency, a parasitic step in the chain. It is not capitalism, it is just a bug that needs to be patched. I don't see what's wrong with forbidding third party ticket sales.
It depends on what you call "right". I would expect a messaging app to send any message, not block something that it thinks won't be good for me. What if I work for a studio and want to let someone know that our latest blockbuster has been pirated? Or if I am researching antivirus software and want to tell someone of a zero-day virus I have discovered?
"A company I hate makes a product that does shit I don't like! Instead of moving on with my life, I'll cook up insane speculative straw man scenarios and knock them down on the Internet!"
It's amazing how people can turn mundane bullshit into some kind of critical issue. What if you need to tell some vitally information to somebody? Well, perhaps you'll pick up the fucking phone! There's a thought!
When you use a private browsing feature the browser does not retain those cookies. What ELSE would the point be of "safe mode"? Besides, while it is a form of tracking, it is quite different from logging in. When logging in, you become associated with a full identity. When tracked with a cookie, you are associated to a random GUID. The moment you erase the GUID the association ends. Now, they might try to use your IP to determine a real-world identity, but that is unreliable, and what would be the point? If you are worried that they might serve targeted ads to you while you surreptitiously browse for goat porn, I suggest maybe toning down the paranoia.
Then he lost his job, which was no big deal but the unemployment eventually ran-out (2 years). NOW he's dead, because he had ~30,000 racked-up on credit cards with no incoming money, and unable to pay his bills, so he ended his life.
Guess it didn't occur to him to maybe sell some of the shit he bought on credit, to pay that balance (partially) down? He thought ending his life was preferable to giving up whatever junk he bought. That's not stupid, that's crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like the campaigns, ignore the campaigns. It isn't difficult. Just don't listen to the fuckers.
Why must they be replaced? "Having nobody in office is better than having YOU in office" is a powerful message. And honestly, shit is NOT going to fall to pieces just because we don't have the requisite meddling douche in office for a couple months. Grow a spine. You don't need these people that badly.
You pose it like an objective question with a correct answer. It is not such a thing.
You just taught him that it's always you who withdraws him from something. It's therefore natural for him that you also were responsible for the show stopping. And he's annoyed at you taking away things from him.
It is way more complicated than that. The rules are well-known and consistently enforced, not just by me but by the other adults in his life. He knows ahead of time what the time limitation is, he's told before the time limit is over that the limit is about to expire, and he acknowledges it. It's not an instant flip-out because dad snatched the device from his hands, it takes more time than that, but he definitely gets grumpy about it.
It's strongly suspected that visual media is involved in attention problems. I know how the tablet has affected me. I am capable of putting two and two together. As far as your inference that because of my tablet rule I must be a serial depriver who doesn't let my kid do anything, you just took about a mile-long leap into thin air with that one.
Finally I bought a pair of walkie talkies with a 30+ mile range so that she could keep track of me and know if I'd done something exceedingly stupid like fall off a cliff or argue territory with a bull.
So if you did fall off a cliff, the plan was to grab the handset and scream into it on your way down? What a wonderful way to part with your wife!
Sorry, no. I will not permit a four year old to "zone out" into a media-connected device. Honestly, I'd rather he not use the thing at all, but I'm not the only decision-maker in his life so I compromise on it.
I allowed him to watch a 30 minute Charlie Brown Halloween movie back in October. When the show was over, he flipped his lid, punched me and demanded that I somehow make the show continue. That sort of behavior is called "withdrawal."
We observe clear addictive behavior in adults who use the Internet to consume media. Being able to carry the Internet with you on your phone or tablet obviously exaggerates these effects. So you really should be asking yourself, does it make sense to not only expose, but force, children to use devices that clearly lead to addictive patterns of behavior when used by adults?
I own a tablet, and I find that I can no longer entertain myself effectively by reading a book. Instead of grabbing a book I impulsively reach for the tablet. Instead of sitting down for two hours to work on something in a concentrated way, I find myself becoming distracted regularly and goofing off with the tablet. My wife and I both exhibit these addictions and we will often sit on opposite sides of the house, isolated, browsing random shit online. Yes, a computer can do all these things but you don't sit at a computer 24/7 (well, most people don't). With a phone or tablet it's trivial to carry the addictive substance with you everywhere you go.
I allow my older son to use the tablet for about five minutes per day. And even that is perhaps too much. When it's time to stop, he gets combative and irritable. It reminds me a lot of how I used to behave when I couldn't smoke a cigarette. The only way you could not notice that this is a bad thing is if your head is up your ass.
No, we should not be exposing children to this any more than necessary, and we should definitely not REQUIRE it!
Just because bad things are known to happen in the gladiator pit does not magically excuse you when bad things predictably happen to a person who should not have been put there in the first place.
The last 8 bit processor in a computer was the 8086/8088.
Those are both 16-bit processors. The 8088 had an 8-bit memory bus but was unquestionably a 16-bit CPU.
No, all you have to do is buy another drive and restore it on to that drive.
So, all I have to do is open my computer, swap my main disk out, try the restore, then swap it back? That's not exactly a low-risk operation for an average person. I ask again, what's the solution for the home user? The solution should not involve performing surgery on my computer.
Sounded like a cool app to me. If you do something idiotic like publish your location in real time on the Internet for the whole world to see, you need a nice kick in the pants to help you understand just how much of a fool you are. I actually think we need more apps like this, they help remind people why some of us "crazies" actually value our privacy.
So, how does a home user test the restore? Seems like chicken-and-egg. To test the restore I need to wipe the drive. To wipe the drive I better have a working backup. To know I've got a working backup I need to... test the restore?
IMO, either you rely on common sense to figure things out, or you rely on precisely worded laws. There is no mixture. If the judge is going to use "common sense" then why does he need laws to refer to?
Seriously? I could easily debate for DAYS on what "one subject" means, what "scope" means, and what "object" means. That's so vaguely worded it's completely useless.
Don't YOU, as applicant, want to know if that's something I care about? Why would you want to remain uninformed about the atmosphere of the company? What if you quit your current job, start at the new place and only THEN discover that your boss is a racist homophobe? Now you're stuck in a really shitty job. Sticking your head in the sand during the interview is stupid.
It's not United States of China. China is FAR smarter than to chuck a future member of the workforce out of school because of a curse word. They need workers in order to continue climbing on top of the US and doing naughty things to us. Only arrogant, ignorant, decadent nations like our own could perpetrate stupidity like this.
Yeah. Kicking him out of school, the one thing that provides any sort of hope of actually obtaining a job in this "real world" you speak of, is definitely the thing to do. Let's add another stupid unemployed social-services-sucking possibly-homeless child to our fine country. I personally just cannot wait to begin paying for this person out of my own taxes. We really fucking need that. And when I say we need that, I mean we need it like we need a hole in the head.
This is nothing more than "Neener neener, you broke a rule so I'm gonna fucking BOOTSTOMP YOUR ENTIRE LIFE." It's called abuse of power, it's being perpetrated by adults on a child, and it's sick.
Did they also say that they would take away your RAM at some point if you did have enough?
Huh? That's not even a sensible analogy.
Among other important differences with you story is that an always on connection means that you lose the game whenever the publishers decides to turn it off.
True, and that's a very good reason to not buy this game, if you feel that's a risk. Your point? I don't see your point. Unless your point is "Blaaaarhghhghgh, Hulk Mad!" Because that's what it sounds like.
The fact that you are "concerned" at ANY level about the possibility of not being able to play a game for a little while is difficult to understand, especially when you have the free choice of not purchasing said game.
"They made it, but it's not what I wanted, so I'll stand over here and catch on fire." Ok, feel free to do that, I guess.
No, and why would you expect it? When the United States banned leaded gasoline in cars, did they federal government offer to buy your leaded-fuel vehicle at fair market value? Time passes, shit changes, life goes on. If it seems like a risk you don't feel comfortable taking, don't take it. It's not like they're being deceptive about it, it's right here on Slashdot.
Personally, I was mighty pissed in 1995 when I tried to install Might & Magic III and the program told me it didn't have enough memory to run. I mean the NERVE of those guys. They sell me a game but it turns out I need to have constant access to RAM in order to use it? What a load.
According to you, people would buy everything straight from the producer. That rarely happens in the real world. Everything you buy changes hands once, twice, maybe three or four times before you get to pick it up from the store shelf and put it in your shopping cart? Did you buy your car straight from Ford? No, you bought it from a Cal Worthington Ford. Did you buy your lettuce from the farmer? No, you bought it from Albertsons. Did Albertsons buy it from the farmer? No, they bought it from a distributor, who bought it from a co-op. Did you buy your Samsung TV directly from Samsung in Korea? No, and neither did Best Buy; they got it from the importer. Etc. etc.
In your dumb examples, the middlemen save the end customer actual money. You don't drive 50 miles to pick an apple from a tree, because that would cost $10.00 even with a decently efficient car. $10.00 of overhead to buy an apple is ridiculous, that's why you have supermarkets. It's more expensive if you want to buy direct.
In the case of online ticket sales, what cost is the middleman saving you from? The cost of clicking a button? The middleman is pure inefficiency, a parasitic step in the chain. It is not capitalism, it is just a bug that needs to be patched. I don't see what's wrong with forbidding third party ticket sales.
It depends on what you call "right". I would expect a messaging app to send any message, not block something that it thinks won't be good for me. What if I work for a studio and want to let someone know that our latest blockbuster has been pirated? Or if I am researching antivirus software and want to tell someone of a zero-day virus I have discovered?
"A company I hate makes a product that does shit I don't like! Instead of moving on with my life, I'll cook up insane speculative straw man scenarios and knock them down on the Internet!"
It's amazing how people can turn mundane bullshit into some kind of critical issue. What if you need to tell some vitally information to somebody? Well, perhaps you'll pick up the fucking phone! There's a thought!
When you use a private browsing feature the browser does not retain those cookies. What ELSE would the point be of "safe mode"? Besides, while it is a form of tracking, it is quite different from logging in. When logging in, you become associated with a full identity. When tracked with a cookie, you are associated to a random GUID. The moment you erase the GUID the association ends. Now, they might try to use your IP to determine a real-world identity, but that is unreliable, and what would be the point? If you are worried that they might serve targeted ads to you while you surreptitiously browse for goat porn, I suggest maybe toning down the paranoia.
Then he lost his job, which was no big deal but the unemployment eventually ran-out (2 years). NOW he's dead, because he had ~30,000 racked-up on credit cards with no incoming money, and unable to pay his bills, so he ended his life.
Guess it didn't occur to him to maybe sell some of the shit he bought on credit, to pay that balance (partially) down? He thought ending his life was preferable to giving up whatever junk he bought. That's not stupid, that's crazy.