It's fucking impossible to raise kids and not indoctrinate. You indoctrinate them to not put their hands in the oven, not to put that pencil in the poweroutlet. It's all indoctrination. It's a fact of life and even raising your kids with your own values (not to indoctrinate) is indoctrination. See, there is no way around it. You want to protect your kids and raise them to be good men or women. With decent values. How do you set up those values? Well by your own. You're saying we should stop being human. But let's agree to disagree. Speak to you again when you have your own kids.
And how do you gonna bring that in practice? Let them view porn at 4 because you don't to censor the information that is given to the child? A child cannot comprehend everything like adults can. That's what learning and teaching is all about. And parents may want to raise their kids to never use violence, while others would chose to put their kids on karate to learn to protect theirself. It's these choices that is parenting. There is no perfect recipe like: no censor. Offcourse you're gonna censor things for your kid. I'll be damned the day that I let my 4 year old go watch a car accident. Wanna know why? She would get very bad nightmares. You just chose to take a really extreme point that is totally unrealistic from a real world perspective.
A kid needs a certain set of rules to develop in. Those rules are set by parents, based upon their own experiences in life. If that is to hard to understand, you're probably still a teenager. In that case, no worries, you'll understand later. If that's not the case, then please do explain to everyone once and for all how to raise a kid?
That's one way to look at it. Didn't think about it, but here we know what our children possess and buy. But I am sure that's not in every part of the world or town/city. It's a valid viewpoint, but it would really need an age on it. It would be freaking weird to let a 16 y/o with guns and a car in a heavy traffic city drive around but deny him the right to buy GTA. Then again, common sense has and will never be an issue in politics.
I hope you can see the difference between a sporting-accident and the potential to create a complete generation of serial-killers.
(I don't think it will, but some people do think this.)
No I do honestly believe this is stuff for parents. And I have nothing to sell to you. I feel this way because like the other person said here, it's about moral. Morals differ. That is what makes us all unique, for good and worst. Upon the basic things like: thou shall not kill/steal/murder/rape/vote Republic, government involvement should restricted to things like roads. Things we actually get better from. You're right with one thing without a doubt. If they look anything like dad, they have a hidden truecrypt container somewhere in an.iso lol.
Leave it to the parents. There is no need for regulation however, being from the first gaming-gen myself... I don't think these shooters or gta that I love myself so much for the pure fun of it are actually good. If anything they do promote violence, even reward you for it. I think my own kids will have to put up with dad reviewing their games. At least in the early ages. And depending on how they develop somewhere between 12-16 I'll let them free to play what they want. Just as long daddy can kick their asses with it.
Yeah that would be cool. However (and I think most countries have this) if I would do that here in the Netherlands..... I get fined up to 8000 euro's per liter 'non-taxed' fuel I used. To put this in perspective, a rapevictim here get's around 500-1500 euro's from the offender. Very powerfull people don't want us driving good clean fuel. It's all about the money. And that's a shame cause I just know we have everything we need to do a whole lot better. Maybe leave a bit of the planet left for future generations. Lol.
Ah well. Any progress is progress and from that POV I applaud this.
i don't think we are gonna agree. You tell me that I'm a fool and yet you aren't willing to accept that these concept cars have come a long way. 2100 miles to the gallon....... You don't even comment on that part. While that is THE part to comment and talk about. The engines in these concept cars will one day be in your own solar powered car. In your lifetime assuming you have another 40 years to go. Mark my words.
Weird, when we have cars on the road on solarenergy that are not at all 100 meters long. Not at all. What I'm saying is, we should step away from fuel that you have to burn. It's 1 time use only. And we have the techs. Loot at the other comment I made. A car that does 2100 miles to the gallon. Powered by solar. That's progress. That's the future. Anyway, we don't all have to agree. I think it's cool to make a better engine. No problems from me with that. But it's a waste of resources if you do that when there is a far more energy conservative way is already available. Then you are actually keeping back progress. At least imho.
Not at all what I'm trying to say. Let me try it one more time. He claims: THIS HAS THE FUTURE.
I claim: NO IT DOESN'T.
That's all. Feel free to work upon improving existing tech, no problem from me there. Just don't make this idiotic salestalk. Cause I ain't buying.
Yeah but he is claiming this to be the future and it isn't. It's still burning up precious sources that we need to protect for future-use. We have used up all the worlds oil-reserve that took millions of years to make in 150 year. That is insane. Who knows what we can use oil for with future inventions. The future of cars really is in the renewable energy. You only have to look at the Dutch University of Twente. Where they have engines that take you 1000km to a liter fuel. Why? Well the damn thing just runs on solarpower when possible. That is the future. This is just an engine that isn't the most efficient by a long shot. He should have made this engine 40 years ago, when the small savings of oil would have made a difference. In this day and time we have technology that is just years ahead of this engine.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol! thank you :)
Do you have sources/proof of that? I would love to know :)
China has discovered that some kindle-owners had accessed forbidden sites. They have kindlied been dealt with. China is safe once again.
"I have no interest in furthering the survival of such an illogical species." And I applaud that. Thank you and have good night.
It's fucking impossible to raise kids and not indoctrinate. You indoctrinate them to not put their hands in the oven, not to put that pencil in the poweroutlet. It's all indoctrination. It's a fact of life and even raising your kids with your own values (not to indoctrinate) is indoctrination. See, there is no way around it. You want to protect your kids and raise them to be good men or women. With decent values. How do you set up those values? Well by your own. You're saying we should stop being human. But let's agree to disagree. Speak to you again when you have your own kids.
Have you ever been in a room with a 4 year old? Alone? You have no clue how kids are, that's for sure.
And how do you gonna bring that in practice? Let them view porn at 4 because you don't to censor the information that is given to the child? A child cannot comprehend everything like adults can. That's what learning and teaching is all about. And parents may want to raise their kids to never use violence, while others would chose to put their kids on karate to learn to protect theirself. It's these choices that is parenting. There is no perfect recipe like: no censor. Offcourse you're gonna censor things for your kid. I'll be damned the day that I let my 4 year old go watch a car accident. Wanna know why? She would get very bad nightmares. You just chose to take a really extreme point that is totally unrealistic from a real world perspective.
A kid needs a certain set of rules to develop in. Those rules are set by parents, based upon their own experiences in life. If that is to hard to understand, you're probably still a teenager. In that case, no worries, you'll understand later. If that's not the case, then please do explain to everyone once and for all how to raise a kid?
Parenting = indoctrination. If not they would call it feeding.
They are raining on my parade. *stops pinging to google.com*
I can actually 'test' the security of youtube/gmail and such and don't get a party-van in front of my house?
That's one way to look at it. Didn't think about it, but here we know what our children possess and buy. But I am sure that's not in every part of the world or town/city. It's a valid viewpoint, but it would really need an age on it. It would be freaking weird to let a 16 y/o with guns and a car in a heavy traffic city drive around but deny him the right to buy GTA. Then again, common sense has and will never be an issue in politics.
I hope you can see the difference between a sporting-accident and the potential to create a complete generation of serial-killers. (I don't think it will, but some people do think this.)
No I do honestly believe this is stuff for parents. And I have nothing to sell to you. I feel this way because like the other person said here, it's about moral. Morals differ. That is what makes us all unique, for good and worst. Upon the basic things like: thou shall not kill/steal/murder/rape/vote Republic, government involvement should restricted to things like roads. Things we actually get better from. You're right with one thing without a doubt. If they look anything like dad, they have a hidden truecrypt container somewhere in an .iso lol.
Leave it to the parents. There is no need for regulation however, being from the first gaming-gen myself... I don't think these shooters or gta that I love myself so much for the pure fun of it are actually good. If anything they do promote violence, even reward you for it. I think my own kids will have to put up with dad reviewing their games. At least in the early ages. And depending on how they develop somewhere between 12-16 I'll let them free to play what they want. Just as long daddy can kick their asses with it.
Yeah that would be cool. However (and I think most countries have this) if I would do that here in the Netherlands..... I get fined up to 8000 euro's per liter 'non-taxed' fuel I used. To put this in perspective, a rapevictim here get's around 500-1500 euro's from the offender. Very powerfull people don't want us driving good clean fuel. It's all about the money. And that's a shame cause I just know we have everything we need to do a whole lot better. Maybe leave a bit of the planet left for future generations. Lol. Ah well. Any progress is progress and from that POV I applaud this.
i don't think we are gonna agree. You tell me that I'm a fool and yet you aren't willing to accept that these concept cars have come a long way. 2100 miles to the gallon....... You don't even comment on that part. While that is THE part to comment and talk about. The engines in these concept cars will one day be in your own solar powered car. In your lifetime assuming you have another 40 years to go. Mark my words.
Weird, when we have cars on the road on solarenergy that are not at all 100 meters long. Not at all. What I'm saying is, we should step away from fuel that you have to burn. It's 1 time use only. And we have the techs. Loot at the other comment I made. A car that does 2100 miles to the gallon. Powered by solar. That's progress. That's the future. Anyway, we don't all have to agree. I think it's cool to make a better engine. No problems from me with that. But it's a waste of resources if you do that when there is a far more energy conservative way is already available. Then you are actually keeping back progress. At least imho.
More so than a hummer, yes.
That is my whole point. There is something better already. Even as for as 2,843.4 miles to the gallon. Now that is an improvement. http://green.autoblog.com/2008/04/13/new-record-at-shell-eco-marathon-2-843-mpg/
Not at all what I'm trying to say. Let me try it one more time. He claims: THIS HAS THE FUTURE. I claim: NO IT DOESN'T. That's all. Feel free to work upon improving existing tech, no problem from me there. Just don't make this idiotic salestalk. Cause I ain't buying.
I'm in no way debating that :) I'm sure once he has a working one it will sell. For sure. Still isn't the future of where engines are going to though.
Yeah but he is claiming this to be the future and it isn't. It's still burning up precious sources that we need to protect for future-use. We have used up all the worlds oil-reserve that took millions of years to make in 150 year. That is insane. Who knows what we can use oil for with future inventions. The future of cars really is in the renewable energy. You only have to look at the Dutch University of Twente. Where they have engines that take you 1000km to a liter fuel. Why? Well the damn thing just runs on solarpower when possible. That is the future. This is just an engine that isn't the most efficient by a long shot. He should have made this engine 40 years ago, when the small savings of oil would have made a difference. In this day and time we have technology that is just years ahead of this engine.
Yeah but there is no oil there, so who gives a fuck.
An engine-developer and seller tells us that the future is in the engines that he happens to be able to sell you. Didn't see that one coming.