The point was that someone was saying the US should pull out of Japan, in order to teach them some kind of lesson. My point was the US wouldn't want to, because it's in their best interest to stay (regardless of what Japan wants or needs).
I'm one of "these teachers" and I'll be losing the ability to use LaTeX to make worksheets, for one (and Emacs, but I don't expect anyone to sympathize with me there).
I remember running around pulling glass bottles and beer cans out of people's recycling blue bins on recycling day as a kid, taking them in and getting the deposits back. I really cleaned up!
No, the Prime Minister is the Head of Government, the Queen is the Head of State, and the Governor General is the Queen's representative in Canada (since she doesn't live here).
There's not always such an alternative. The school I'm working for is talking about buying iPads for all the teachers and banning all Windows boxes (which until now have been the private property of the teachers) as a security thing.
I'm negotiating with them to let me keep my Debian machine. I make all my worksheets using LaTeX on Emacs. Being forced to use an iPad would be devastating.
You only have to contribute back if you use someone's code, modify it, and distribute it.
If you don't wish to then don't use it.
Gosh, that seems to have blown your whole argument out of the water?
No, actually, he said (twice in fact!) that Ubuntu encouraged him to contribute. Not forced or guilted.
As in: the Ubuntu community made him want to contribute to that community, resulting in---more contributions from the community!!! That's his argument, which is pretty clear if you read rather than skim.
So I guess what we are all saying is that a sufficiently "same environment" is impossible to create, and that children will thus ineluctably end up different from each other.
Well, yup, the empirical evidence sure bears that out.
But we'll still agree to blame the parents, yes?
There's a lot of splitting hairs about my use of the phrase "same environment". If the environment can never sufficiently be "the same", and if these differences are sufficient to cause behaviour problems in one of the children, then I can only conclude that it's out of the parents' control in the first place.
By "environment" I think I was trying to get more at the environment the parents are trying to create---the values they are trying to instil in their children, the roles they are trying to model, etc.
Whatever. It seems we've agreed that parents can never perfectly create a consistently perfect environment for all of their offspring, and they should be punished into the dirt for this insurmountable shortcoming.
I'm three years older than one sister and 13 years older than the other. The three of us had entirely different sets of parents. I remember record players and a B&W TV. My youngest sister doesn't remember a time before the internet.
Sorry, I'd forgotten the results of that well-known study that proved that record players led to delinquency.
Facetiousness aside, we could certainly split hairs by saying it's impossible for two children to be raised in exactly the same environment---even twins. But if children are that susceptible to initial conditions, how, in the end, can we blame the parents at all.
By the way, I haven't the foggiest clue whether you are on the "blame the parents" or "don't blame the parents" side of this. What was your point?
That's a whole lot of "while"s and "may have"s there.
I'm not naive. There are certainly such cases. Do they account for 100% of differences in siblings?
What is naive is to assume that the children would turn out the same if they were raised exactly the same way.
Parents can have an influence on how a child turns out, but they do not have the last say.
You certainly can while they are young and you are legally responsible for them until they are 18.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "last say"---
Of course, the parent is responsible (legally and morally) for setting and enforcing the rules. Hopefully, the parent will be successful in instilling in the child why there are such rules. But in the end, it will be the child who decides whether or not to face the potential consequences of breaking the rules. The child has the "last say" in choosing their actions, often knowing full well that their actions are wrong (and why (and I'm sure you know many adults who behave reprehensibly, knowing fully well why what they do is wrong. Why would you expect more from children?)).
It's been noted that first children tend to be the over-achievers. Middle children try too hard to live up to their older sibling's standard, but are basically okay. Third and subsequent children tend to rebel, "knowing" they can't be as "good" as the older kids, and get their attention through doing "bad" things.
Don't you think it's strange that the following poster claims the exact opposite of what you're saying here?
Personally, I've never noticed there being any kind of trend based on age. Sometimes it's the older sibling, sometimes the younger, sometimes the twin(!!!), sometimes both, often neither.
The problem with playing devil's advocate is that the devil tends to make up his/her statistics.
As a teacher, have you ever noticed that the elder child is often the most disruptive?
Funny, the previous poster just claimed the exact opposite thing...
Personally, I've never noticed a trend based on the children's respective ages. In fact, I've never noticed any kind of consistency whatsoever in the behaviour of siblings.
In an ideal world you'd be referring to the parents of the little bastards who actually walk out in front of cars on purpose.
As I teacher, I've seen more than my fair share of siblings where the one is a goody-two-shoes straight-A student, and the other was the classic problem child who didn't care about failing as they were too busy learning to light fires, etc etc etc.
Would you praise the parents for the one child while condemning them for the other? They were raised in the same environment, came from the same set of genes.
Parents can have an influence on how a child turns out, but they do not have the last say.
Slashdot Mirror
The point was that someone was saying the US should pull out of Japan, in order to teach them some kind of lesson. My point was the US wouldn't want to, because it's in their best interest to stay (regardless of what Japan wants or needs).
What exactly was your point?
I'm one of "these teachers" and I'll be losing the ability to use LaTeX to make worksheets, for one (and Emacs, but I don't expect anyone to sympathize with me there).
I remember running around pulling glass bottles and beer cans out of people's recycling blue bins on recycling day as a kid, taking them in and getting the deposits back. I really cleaned up!
That all depends on where in Japan you live. Here in Shizuoka people get away with throwing PET bottles in with the regular garbage, even.
Did you dwonload it from Skype or from RapidShare? The Skype site won't let me download it.
No, the Prime Minister is the Head of Government, the Queen is the Head of State, and the Governor General is the Queen's representative in Canada (since she doesn't live here).
I think he's referring to "erroneous" being rendered in katakana. "Ero" is short for "erotic" in Japanese, and generally means "perverted".
How to avoid Apple lock-in in one easy step:
1. Don't go through Apple.
Not always an option. The school I work for is considering forcing all the teachers to use iPads starting next year.
There's not always such an alternative. The school I'm working for is talking about buying iPads for all the teachers and banning all Windows boxes (which until now have been the private property of the teachers) as a security thing.
I'm negotiating with them to let me keep my Debian machine. I make all my worksheets using LaTeX on Emacs. Being forced to use an iPad would be devastating.
People don't value things that come easily.
Yeah, getting laid holds no value for me if I haven't paid for it first.
Anyways, whether "we" (meaning you Americans) knew Auschwitz was happening is irrelevant to why everyone went to war.
First came the war, next came the gas chambers.
"like Pearl Harbor"... Yea that worked out so well for Japan.
It nearly did. Look how far they got despite having nothing much in the way of allies and fighting on jsut about all possible fronts.
This time they have allies. The US is already positioned all over Japan.
The US military is in Japan because it's in the US's best interest to have a military presence in the Far East.
We didn't go to war over Auschwitz. In fact, the war started before Auschwitz.
Care to share your figures? or shall we just accept your statement as utter bullshit?
You only have to contribute back if you use someone's code, modify it, and distribute it.
If you don't wish to then don't use it.
Gosh, that seems to have blown your whole argument out of the water?
No, actually, he said (twice in fact!) that Ubuntu encouraged him to contribute. Not forced or guilted.
As in: the Ubuntu community made him want to contribute to that community, resulting in---more contributions from the community!!! That's his argument, which is pretty clear if you read rather than skim.
So I guess what we are all saying is that a sufficiently "same environment" is impossible to create, and that children will thus ineluctably end up different from each other.
Well, yup, the empirical evidence sure bears that out.
But we'll still agree to blame the parents, yes?
There's a lot of splitting hairs about my use of the phrase "same environment".
If the environment can never sufficiently be "the same", and if these differences are sufficient to cause behaviour problems in one of the children, then I can only conclude that it's out of the parents' control in the first place.
By "environment" I think I was trying to get more at the environment the parents are trying to create---the values they are trying to instil in their children, the roles they are trying to model, etc.
Whatever. It seems we've agreed that parents can never perfectly create a consistently perfect environment for all of their offspring, and they should be punished into the dirt for this insurmountable shortcoming.
Were they?
I'm three years older than one sister and 13 years older than the other. The three of us had entirely different sets of parents. I remember record players and a B&W TV. My youngest sister doesn't remember a time before the internet.
Sorry, I'd forgotten the results of that well-known study that proved that record players led to delinquency.
Facetiousness aside, we could certainly split hairs by saying it's impossible for two children to be raised in exactly the same environment---even twins. But if children are that susceptible to initial conditions, how, in the end, can we blame the parents at all.
By the way, I haven't the foggiest clue whether you are on the "blame the parents" or "don't blame the parents" side of this. What was your point?
That's a whole lot of "while"s and "may have"s there.
I'm not naive. There are certainly such cases. Do they account for 100% of differences in siblings?
What is naive is to assume that the children would turn out the same if they were raised exactly the same way.
Parents can have an influence on how a child turns out, but they do not have the last say.
You certainly can while they are young and you are legally responsible for them until they are 18.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "last say"---
Of course, the parent is responsible (legally and morally) for setting and enforcing the rules. Hopefully, the parent will be successful in instilling in the child why there are such rules. But in the end, it will be the child who decides whether or not to face the potential consequences of breaking the rules. The child has the "last say" in choosing their actions, often knowing full well that their actions are wrong (and why (and I'm sure you know many adults who behave reprehensibly, knowing fully well why what they do is wrong. Why would you expect more from children?)).
It's been noted that first children tend to be the over-achievers. Middle children try too hard to live up to their older sibling's standard, but are basically okay. Third and subsequent children tend to rebel, "knowing" they can't be as "good" as the older kids, and get their attention through doing "bad" things.
Don't you think it's strange that the following poster claims the exact opposite of what you're saying here?
Personally, I've never noticed there being any kind of trend based on age. Sometimes it's the older sibling, sometimes the younger, sometimes the twin(!!!), sometimes both, often neither.
The problem with playing devil's advocate is that the devil tends to make up his/her statistics.
As a teacher, have you ever noticed that the elder child is often the most disruptive?
Funny, the previous poster just claimed the exact opposite thing... Personally, I've never noticed a trend based on the children's respective ages. In fact, I've never noticed any kind of consistency whatsoever in the behaviour of siblings.
In an ideal world you'd be referring to the parents of the little bastards who actually walk out in front of cars on purpose.
As I teacher, I've seen more than my fair share of siblings where the one is a goody-two-shoes straight-A student, and the other was the classic problem child who didn't care about failing as they were too busy learning to light fires, etc etc etc.
Would you praise the parents for the one child while condemning them for the other? They were raised in the same environment, came from the same set of genes.
Parents can have an influence on how a child turns out, but they do not have the last say.
YouTube works fine on my Desire.