I'm within a year of your age, and I honestly think that it's not today's *kids* that are the problem. They don't seem very different from the kids I grew up with.
The difference is opportunity. When I was young I spent time in daycare...not unusual, at all. But, in daycare, no matter if it was a private home with seven kids or the 30-or-greater group day care, the idea was to keep us out of the adult's hair. Legos tend to foster imaginative, boisterous, and frequently a bit noisy indoor play. Definetly bad for the adults. Much better to send the kids outside to play in the cul-de-sac or encourage quiet (but otherwise useless) activities like watching TV.
I was highly thankful when my parents decided that I was old enough to watch myself and my younger sister when I was twelve. I had three years of glorious lego filled summers before I discovered girls.
Wish all kids were that lucky, really.
Oh, and video games, TV and computer do require time and attention span. For the most part it's not the kids' failing, it's that of the adults around them.
or: it's perfectly feasable, just don't get caught. Wireless anything should not be considered secure (unless steps have been taken to secure it, obviously)
Not that that makes me less uncomfortable with the fbi...
One of the carts in the mall was selling these little 'miniture ecosystem' sorts of tanks -- a six by six acrylic cube with a few plants, some snails and four itty bitty little fish. They were great in my cube for about a year (then the biggest fish decided that he'd have the others for lunch, he died about six weeks after that, of unknown causes)
Well, *you* might not have known that already, but I did. It's also possible (with appropriately advanced equiptment) to recreate what is on a regular monitor (I'm unsure of LCDs) by the frequencies it bleeds as well.
It's just rather technologically difficult. But we already knew it was possible.
Certainly the FBI doesn't think everyone is that stupid (um..never mind)
So if they left their husbands, their husbands would no longer be interested in 19 year old girls? I doubt it.
And from personal observation, I doubt that the threat of having a wife leave is enough to get a guy to stop going after other women.
I don't think it's adultery that is the problem here, anyway -- it's grown men in positions of power using those positions of power to go after half grown girls, and then lying about it.
Who was it who said that "the problem with marijuana isn't that it leads to other drugs, the problem with marijuana is that it leads to fucking carpentry"?
The problem with the whole safety/snow/off road theories is that they don't hold up in practice.
Safety: SUVs are, as a whole, more unsafe than either cars, minivans or pickup trucks. They are exempt from the safety regulations that cars and minivans must conform to. They roll far more easily than pickup trucks.
Snow: This is hard, because it's a subjective call. But, I have driven three vehicles in heavy snow and ice: a front wheel drive Toyota Tercel, a rear wheel drive Toyota longbed pickup (both unloaded and fully loaded) and a Ford Explorer in 4wd and rear wheel drive mode. By far, in either mode, the explorer was the worst. It handled like a drunk elephant. My choices, based on experience, would be the fully loaded pickup, the tercel, the empty pickup, the ford in four wheel drive. Don't even try to take one of those things out in RWD. It was fishtailing at 5mph (on a road that I took the tercel down, same conditions, at 20mph)
Unfortunetly I don't know of any close-to-objective comparisons of vehicles in snow, but I've found in conversations that a fair number of long haul non-18-wheeler drivers (and more than a few truckers as well) agree with me. Or are too scared to disagree with me, but I"m not that scary.
I also think (again, personal opinion) that SUVs give (some) people a false sense of security. I don't even want to think about how many SUVs I've seen pass me going 55 or 65 on the highway in snow and ice. Or the number I've seen plowed into the side of the road at curves and said highway.
Off-road: this would be a really nice theory, but...
In the bay area, at least, I'd be shocked if 20% of the SUVs I see ever see more mud than that found in your typical grocery store parking lot.
4wd can be found on station wagons, minivans and pickup trucks. Ground clearance is similar on pickup trucks and some station wagons. All of these vehicals are safer than SUVs. For you and for the other drivers.
They also all get better gas milage than an SUV with similar capacity.
The real reasons (though most won't admit it) that (most) SUV drivers get SUVs is because they are "Cool" and because of conspicuous consumption. If you can afford to gas that behemoth (esspecially in California, where gas prices have been two dollars and some cents per gallon for the past several months) for the morning commute, obviously you're fairly well off.
Personally, I'd rather people buy a nice BMW or a brand new volvo if they want to show off their dicksize, erm, I mean wallet size. It would be safer for the rest of us and a hell of a lot more environmentally sound, too.
Totally off topic, but just in case you want to hear a beautiful rendition of "The Stolen Child" check out Heather Alexander's album Wanderlust
Some very nice fiddle work on it as well.
rark!
I doubt they can recreate the best parts -- like hand copying cheat codes with friends over lunch, or the friend who got ahold of a level editor and a good map of our school, and changed the guns to shoot pencils and the various gaurds to resemble 'favorite' teachers and admin...
I'm inclined to agree that just blaming parents is useless, but one wonders if there's a better way to convince people that parenting is an important job, and that bringing up another human being, helping them learn how to live in a society, will be the hardest and possibly the most rewarding job in their lives, but that the reward comes much later. Babies are cute. That doesn't really compare to 24/7 care. But that having a kid because you want to continue playing with dolls/to keep a relationship/to keep up with the jonses/to shut up the grandparents/etc is screwing with another person's life.
And I agree, it *has* to begin young. It has to begin from the time you bring that kidlet into the world (well, obviously if you adopt the rules change somewhat, but you get the point)
It's strict parenting in the same sense that having the government track me would be strict governing.
Parenting is not about knowing everything your kid did today down to when they took a bathroom break (well, at least not by the time they get into school, that *is* reasonable parenting for an infant and toddler), it's a lot more about how you view and relate to and treat your kids.
The problem with this (and numerous other 'parenting' devices, and that's exactly what they are) is that it allows parents who use them to *believe* they are being better parents, when, the truth is, no monitoring, no device, can make you a better parent, and good parents have been around a hell of a lot longer than modern tech.
Incidently, I had strict (I didn't have a curfew -- I was expected at home every day directly after school or official school activities, where I could then request to go elsewhere, and that request could [and often was] denied, simply because my parents didn't want me to leave the house that day) parents who also gave me a hell of a lot of responsibility (housework, car work, caring for the younger sib and cousins, and I worked full time from the age of 15, and worked odd jobs long before that). Even though they were abusive, rotten folks in some ways (don't even tell me I'm wrong without knowing of what I speak) I managed to turn out okay in the responsibility department. (Which is different than turning out okay 100%, but gives one a much better base for dealing with abuse issues than *not* turning out well in the responsibility department)
Strict parenting and giving responsibility, however, are two separate things. I know plenty of kids whose parents were strict, but never gave them responsibility, and those are the ones who have major problems. I tend to refer to such kids as having "rich kid syndrome" -- they lack responsibility and forethought, and expect the world and everyone in it to come to their aid. While it's not *just* rich kids who have it, and while not all rich kids have it, it seems that the parents who are more interested in money than spending time with their kids, and are often also interested in making it easier for their kids than it was for them, and end up making it too easy for their kids, turn these kids out more than poor parents. It might also be that without their mommy and/or daddy's money such kids don't end up places where I'm likely to see them.
I suspect that these kids are what the original poster is referring to as 'spoiled'.
OTOH, kids who are given both freedom and responsibility from a young age seem to do pretty well as well.
Kids given neither freedom nor responsibility, well, I pity them and society.
I can think of some specific instances when tech like this could be useful for parenting. In most of them it means that *someone* has already screwed up in parenting that child.
And yes, I'm talking from the perspective of a parent.
One ISP I worked for used to know we were being used to send spam because our mail server would die.
Generally there's two ways the administrator of a mail server would know someone is sending spam through the mail server -- the first is that they note the amount of mail being sent through the server. This could be considered 'monitoring your email' but it's highly unlikely that anyone would look unless you were sending a *very* high volume of email (if you're sending less than 100 messages at a time, don't even worry). The second would be for someone to email the admin and telling them that they got spam through that server.
Either way, there's no legal barrier that I know of keeping your ISP from reading your email, unless there's something within your agreement with them (then you have a contract). That said, it's highly unlikely the sysadmins are that bored.
If you're really worried about it, find an ISP that's willing to promise that they'll never read your email, or use GPG
How about the "reproductive right" to have a society that values children?
How about the "reproductive right" to have a society that also values those who choose not to have children?
Hell, how about a world where women don't lose 25% of their income simply because they are the child bearers?
> So it's kind of nice to see this here, but it's
> not the face of mathematics I'd choose to
> present.
Isn't it wonderful that there's so many different learning styles, though?
This is sort of what I was wishing for, all those years of putting up with mathbooks that handed me the formulas but failed to explain why they worked. I had to reverse engineer math all on my own through school.
Of course, after that reverse engineering I usually had a better grasp on concepts than the teacher
Slashdot Mirror
I'm within a year of your age, and I honestly think that it's not today's *kids* that are the problem. They don't seem very different from the kids I grew up with.
The difference is opportunity. When I was young I spent time in daycare...not unusual, at all. But, in daycare, no matter if it was a private home with seven kids or the 30-or-greater group day care, the idea was to keep us out of the adult's hair. Legos tend to foster imaginative, boisterous, and frequently a bit noisy indoor play. Definetly bad for the adults. Much better to send the kids outside to play in the cul-de-sac or encourage quiet (but otherwise useless) activities like watching TV.
I was highly thankful when my parents decided that I was old enough to watch myself and my younger sister when I was twelve. I had three years of glorious lego filled summers before I discovered girls.
Wish all kids were that lucky, really.
Oh, and video games, TV and computer do require time and attention span. For the most part it's not the kids' failing, it's that of the adults around them.
"Can" is not the same as "is legal to"
or: it's perfectly feasable, just don't get caught. Wireless anything should not be considered secure (unless steps have been taken to secure it, obviously)
Not that that makes me less uncomfortable with the fbi...
Probably. Maybe he decided that fish food (which is, after all, mostly dried fish) wasn't good enough, and he really was dying for the fresh stuff.
Yuck yuck yuck.
Sorry.
One of the carts in the mall was selling these little 'miniture ecosystem' sorts of tanks -- a six by six acrylic cube with a few plants, some snails and four itty bitty little fish. They were great in my cube for about a year (then the biggest fish decided that he'd have the others for lunch, he died about six weeks after that, of unknown causes)
Fish are good.
But we knew that already
Well, *you* might not have known that already, but I did. It's also possible (with appropriately advanced equiptment) to recreate what is on a regular monitor (I'm unsure of LCDs) by the frequencies it bleeds as well.
It's just rather technologically difficult. But we already knew it was possible.
Certainly the FBI doesn't think everyone is that stupid (um..never mind)
So if they left their husbands, their husbands would no longer be interested in 19 year old girls? I doubt it.
And from personal observation, I doubt that the threat of having a wife leave is enough to get a guy to stop going after other women.
I don't think it's adultery that is the problem here, anyway -- it's grown men in positions of power using those positions of power to go after half grown girls, and then lying about it.
rark!
Wow. Because men aren't capable of fidelity unless their wives beat them into it?
Damn, and I thought *I* had a low opinion of these schmucks.
Seriously, how on earth can their wives be faulted for the husbands behavior? Are these not grown men?
rark!
indeed! very glad to see it. Woohoo!
(and, honestly, one of about three 'truly deserveds' in my book, but hey, I don't run the webbys)
jdcatron aka
rark!
My father (U.S. Naval officer) told me when I was little that kool-aid makes great aircraft carrier deck cleaner, as well.
This is, as far as I can tell, true. However, it's a cruel thing to tell your three year old..I still can't bring myself to drink the stuff!
rark!
Hrm. Maybe the gods of rand(x) are being nice to me but it doesn't seem to require *that* much background to get the items.
Okay, the tenth dentist still has me stumped...
rark!
Who was it who said that "the problem with marijuana isn't that it leads to other drugs, the problem with marijuana is that it leads to fucking carpentry"?
rark!
The problem with the whole safety/snow/off road theories is that they don't hold up in practice.
Safety: SUVs are, as a whole, more unsafe than either cars, minivans or pickup trucks. They are exempt from the safety regulations that cars and minivans must conform to. They roll far more easily than pickup trucks.
Snow: This is hard, because it's a subjective call. But, I have driven three vehicles in heavy snow and ice: a front wheel drive Toyota Tercel, a rear wheel drive Toyota longbed pickup (both unloaded and fully loaded) and a Ford Explorer in 4wd and rear wheel drive mode. By far, in either mode, the explorer was the worst. It handled like a drunk elephant. My choices, based on experience, would be the fully loaded pickup, the tercel, the empty pickup, the ford in four wheel drive. Don't even try to take one of those things out in RWD. It was fishtailing at 5mph (on a road that I took the tercel down, same conditions, at 20mph)
Unfortunetly I don't know of any close-to-objective comparisons of vehicles in snow, but I've found in conversations that a fair number of long haul non-18-wheeler drivers (and more than a few truckers as well) agree with me. Or are too scared to disagree with me, but I"m not that scary.
I also think (again, personal opinion) that SUVs give (some) people a false sense of security. I don't even want to think about how many SUVs I've seen pass me going 55 or 65 on the highway in snow and ice. Or the number I've seen plowed into the side of the road at curves and said highway.
Off-road: this would be a really nice theory, but...
In the bay area, at least, I'd be shocked if 20% of the SUVs I see ever see more mud than that found in your typical grocery store parking lot.
4wd can be found on station wagons, minivans and pickup trucks. Ground clearance is similar on pickup trucks and some station wagons. All of these vehicals are safer than SUVs. For you and for the other drivers.
They also all get better gas milage than an SUV with similar capacity.
The real reasons (though most won't admit it) that (most) SUV drivers get SUVs is because they are "Cool" and because of conspicuous consumption. If you can afford to gas that behemoth (esspecially in California, where gas prices have been two dollars and some cents per gallon for the past several months) for the morning commute, obviously you're fairly well off.
Personally, I'd rather people buy a nice BMW or a brand new volvo if they want to show off their dicksize, erm, I mean wallet size. It would be safer for the rest of us and a hell of a lot more environmentally sound, too.
rark!
Totally off topic, but just in case you want to hear a beautiful rendition of "The Stolen Child" check out Heather Alexander's album Wanderlust Some very nice fiddle work on it as well.
rark!
heh. I remember. But..
I doubt they can recreate the best parts -- like hand copying cheat codes with friends over lunch, or the friend who got ahold of a level editor and a good map of our school, and changed the guns to shoot pencils and the various gaurds to resemble 'favorite' teachers and admin...
the big nasty guy was our principal.
yeah...you can never go home.
rark!
In other words, he's a BOFH
I like him already
rark!
No, gender is social, sex is biological.
However, your point about s/sex/gender/g being bad is correct.
rark!
Heh. Nice quote, pink floyd rocks.
Did you win your suit?
And is there any chance you could provide references about the hate magazines. I can believe it, but I'd love to have something to back it up.
rark!
I'm inclined to agree that just blaming parents is useless, but one wonders if there's a better way to convince people that parenting is an important job, and that bringing up another human being, helping them learn how to live in a society, will be the hardest and possibly the most rewarding job in their lives, but that the reward comes much later. Babies are cute. That doesn't really compare to 24/7 care. But that having a kid because you want to continue playing with dolls/to keep a relationship/to keep up with the jonses/to shut up the grandparents/etc is screwing with another person's life.
And I agree, it *has* to begin young. It has to begin from the time you bring that kidlet into the world (well, obviously if you adopt the rules change somewhat, but you get the point)
rark!
It's strict parenting in the same sense that having the government track me would be strict governing.
Parenting is not about knowing everything your kid did today down to when they took a bathroom break (well, at least not by the time they get into school, that *is* reasonable parenting for an infant and toddler), it's a lot more about how you view and relate to and treat your kids.
The problem with this (and numerous other 'parenting' devices, and that's exactly what they are) is that it allows parents who use them to *believe* they are being better parents, when, the truth is, no monitoring, no device, can make you a better parent, and good parents have been around a hell of a lot longer than modern tech.
Incidently, I had strict (I didn't have a curfew -- I was expected at home every day directly after school or official school activities, where I could then request to go elsewhere, and that request could [and often was] denied, simply because my parents didn't want me to leave the house that day) parents who also gave me a hell of a lot of responsibility (housework, car work, caring for the younger sib and cousins, and I worked full time from the age of 15, and worked odd jobs long before that). Even though they were abusive, rotten folks in some ways (don't even tell me I'm wrong without knowing of what I speak) I managed to turn out okay in the responsibility department. (Which is different than turning out okay 100%, but gives one a much better base for dealing with abuse issues than *not* turning out well in the responsibility department)
Strict parenting and giving responsibility, however, are two separate things. I know plenty of kids whose parents were strict, but never gave them responsibility, and those are the ones who have major problems. I tend to refer to such kids as having "rich kid syndrome" -- they lack responsibility and forethought, and expect the world and everyone in it to come to their aid. While it's not *just* rich kids who have it, and while not all rich kids have it, it seems that the parents who are more interested in money than spending time with their kids, and are often also interested in making it easier for their kids than it was for them, and end up making it too easy for their kids, turn these kids out more than poor parents. It might also be that without their mommy and/or daddy's money such kids don't end up places where I'm likely to see them.
I suspect that these kids are what the original poster is referring to as 'spoiled'.
OTOH, kids who are given both freedom and responsibility from a young age seem to do pretty well as well.
Kids given neither freedom nor responsibility, well, I pity them and society.
I can think of some specific instances when tech like this could be useful for parenting. In most of them it means that *someone* has already screwed up in parenting that child.
And yes, I'm talking from the perspective of a parent.
rark!
One ISP I worked for used to know we were being used to send spam because our mail server would die.
Generally there's two ways the administrator of a mail server would know someone is sending spam through the mail server -- the first is that they note the amount of mail being sent through the server. This could be considered 'monitoring your email' but it's highly unlikely that anyone would look unless you were sending a *very* high volume of email (if you're sending less than 100 messages at a time, don't even worry). The second would be for someone to email the admin and telling them that they got spam through that server.
Either way, there's no legal barrier that I know of keeping your ISP from reading your email, unless there's something within your agreement with them (then you have a contract). That said, it's highly unlikely the sysadmins are that bored.
If you're really worried about it, find an ISP that's willing to promise that they'll never read your email, or use GPG
rark!
How about the "reproductive right" to have a society that values children?
How about the "reproductive right" to have a society that also values those who choose not to have children?
Hell, how about a world where women don't lose 25% of their income simply because they are the child bearers?
bah.
rark!
I dunno. At least when you have to tell someone that you can't meet them for dinner 'cos the network took a shit on you, you'll be being literal.
Sorry, had to be said.
rark!
> So it's kind of nice to see this here, but it's
> not the face of mathematics I'd choose to
> present.
Isn't it wonderful that there's so many different learning styles, though?
This is sort of what I was wishing for, all those years of putting up with mathbooks that handed me the formulas but failed to explain why they worked. I had to reverse engineer math all on my own through school.
Of course, after that reverse engineering I usually had a better grasp on concepts than the teacher
rark!
um..that's one tenth
look at it as a mathematician, not an english major
rark!
The poor judge, baliff, jury (if applicable) etc for having to be in the courtroom for this one.