What was it about the question asked that make you assume that the child would be deprived of the other needful infantile stimulation? Why would some tablet playtime prevent a child from going outside or seeing the world around them?
Was a random trial or a retrospective? Let's a have a link to your wife's publications so we can see if her research really says what you say it does.
Wait I just re-read your comment and realized all you mean is my overbearing wife googled some shit on the internet and got worried. You can still provide the studies, though, so that we can tell you why they don't mean what your wife thinks they do.
better than handing them a tablet and forgetting about them
Hmmm, it seems like the problem is the forgetting, not the tablet. If you try a little harder you might develop the ability to think nuanced thoughts so that you can divide those things. Give it a shot, it might be fun for you.
Actually, it does, so if that is really how you would make the decision then I guess you'd better change your mind. I suspect that's not really how you decided, though.
You're not a jackass because you judged some parents who use televisions as babysitters, you're a jackass because you used black-white thinking to put into a single group anybody who uses any electronics around babies. It's shallow thinking. It's prejudice premised on ignorance.
I'm not following your path to that judgement. We also had hundreds of thousands of years without clothing, cooking, or sanitation. Are your children crawling around naked all the time? Is their diet restricted to grubs, raw vegetables and pond water? Do you refuse to wipe your child's ass with anything but a pinecone or the back of your left hand? Why would you insist on caveman standards? Is it somehow difficult for you to believe that a responsible parent could use pretty much everything in his modern environment in appropriate ways during child rearing?
Why would you choose to give them a mind-numbing electronic gadget instead of a mind-engaging electronic gadget? Do you give your children mind-numbing wooden toys? How about reading them mind-numbing books? Golly I don't give my children mind-numbing anything. Any electronic gadget used in my household engages the mind, like everything else in my house.
Why would you substitute the acquisition of developmental language skills and the attendant ability to relate and empathise - with a fixation on shiny lights and noises?
False dichotomy and straw man. Thanks, I'm looking for an option you didn't list: acquisition of all sorts of skills, not just the subset you want to restrict your children to.
Yes, like I said, major changes. I suspect you don't really mean major changes, though, you mean ONLY api changes. In that case, why? Why is only broken backwards compatibility sufficient to increment the primary decimal? I don't think that is 'best'.
I'm not proposing that government regulate open source version numbers or take away anyone's "free"dom. I'm critiquing the use of version numbers, by some people, as silly. People are "free" to number as they wish but that doesn't shield them from the rest of us rolling our eyes toward them.
If your Mustangs were numbered as the Mustang 3.0 and the Mustang 5.5, you would still know which one is newer. Using dates is another meaningful way to version software -- that is, the versions still have meaning. But if all you use is a serial number which only increments once per decade then those version are meaningless. My claim is that developing software actively for a decade, doing a huge amount of work, and then merely bumping the secondary decimal shows that the person has some kind of irrational desire to increase their versions as little as possible.
It depends on how you define it. My guess is that they developed a functional prototype, hence, "they built it". It was built; they built it.
But that semantic point wasn't the important part, it was merely a tool to point out the source of the problem -- just like you said, Apple. It would seem odd to me if they folded their business plan and refunded money *without* explaining the problem. You objected to them blaming Apple, and I'm saying blaming Apple was required, because they had to explain themselves and Apple was to blame (assuming what they say is true).
Can anyone explain why some open source* people have a fetish for tiny version numbers? If you are going to spend ten years developing a new version, is that REALLY not worth a primary version number? What is the attraction to having versions as near to zero as possible? In a dotted-decimal notation, why do some people think only the second decimal should be incremented, and at that only once per decade, and the first decimal should remain zero forever?
The primary decimal should be zero when the project is started and should be 1 when it reaches initial functional maturity. Major versions with substantial new features warrant primary-decimal increments. Minor features warrant secondary-decimal increments. Bug fixes warrant tertiary-decimal increments. Otherwise one of the main benefits of the dotted-decimal notation is lost.
Yes! High five, brother. I also gave up on Apple five years ago. It was a sad day because Macs are all I'd ever owned ever since my first LC III in middle school. I'm still coasting on my MacBook Pro, but I gave up on iPods (Android now), gave up on iPads (I have a Transformer), and gave up on desktop Macs (bought a Linux PC).
What pushed me over the edge? Apple intentionally crippled their iPods to require $49.99 Apple-branded video cables whereas the previous generation of iPod accepted video cords that cost six cents (literally, not figuratively, six cents). I knew the good behavior from Apple was over, I foresaw the future, and I went to greener pastures. I sure wish I could go back to Apple and enjoy their nice shiny products but alas that would make me feel like a schmuck.
I'm truly wondering how you could possibly think there would be a statement from Apple. Seriously, are you expecting this?
"Hi, we're Apple. Fuck these cord folks, they can eat a dick. We will never allow them to build their product because fuck 'em, that's why. PS Android can eat our buttholes."
or
"Hi, we're Apple. These cord folks can't license our 'property' because we are illegally conspiring against competing products. Sorry, we'll loosen up when we absolutely have to like in the glory days of 1998-1999. Remember those days? With USB and open source and all that good stuff? Yeah, man, good memories. Hey would you like to buy an iPhone in yet another size?"
I'll go back to Apple (five years 'clean') after they apologize for their actions. This is the same standard I use for Microsoft (successfully never bought a single thing from them) and the Republican party.
Yes. You are missing that they weren't trying to sell a USB hub. The world already has a lot of USB hubs. So, you are missing that this is a different product than the one you described.
No, it didn't turn out they couldn't build it, it turned out Apple wouldn't let them build it. They easily could have built it, it's a simple matter of a few wires and molded plastic. "Building it" wasn't the problem here, was it?
A female USB port doesn't solve the problem because that isn't an integrated cord. The world already has USB hubs, so another USB hub isn't the product they were trying to build.
"When you do things that are bad for the customer I think it will be bad for them.”
LOL, I can tell this guy isn't swayed by things like reality or evidence. When has fucking customers ever turned out badly for a company? Okay, yeah, every now and then it happens, but way way over 99% of products and companies at any given time are proactively going out of their way to fuck customers for nothing but the fun of it.
Probably because -- and I'm just guessing here -- then it wouldn't be an integrated cord thus making it a completely different product. Note that the world already has USB hubs; presumably this product was supposed to be different than that.
Slashdot Mirror
What was it about the question asked that make you assume that the child would be deprived of the other needful infantile stimulation? Why would some tablet playtime prevent a child from going outside or seeing the world around them?
Was a random trial or a retrospective? Let's a have a link to your wife's publications so we can see if her research really says what you say it does.
Wait I just re-read your comment and realized all you mean is my overbearing wife googled some shit on the internet and got worried. You can still provide the studies, though, so that we can tell you why they don't mean what your wife thinks they do.
better than handing them a tablet and forgetting about them
Hmmm, it seems like the problem is the forgetting, not the tablet. If you try a little harder you might develop the ability to think nuanced thoughts so that you can divide those things. Give it a shot, it might be fun for you.
Actually, it does, so if that is really how you would make the decision then I guess you'd better change your mind. I suspect that's not really how you decided, though.
You're an ass for defining "right" as "whatever I just said". It's a transparent rhetorical failure.
Why are you purposely retarding your children's development? It seems like a mean thing to do just to preserve some kind of parenting philosophy.
You're not a jackass because you judged some parents who use televisions as babysitters, you're a jackass because you used black-white thinking to put into a single group anybody who uses any electronics around babies. It's shallow thinking. It's prejudice premised on ignorance.
I'm not following your path to that judgement. We also had hundreds of thousands of years without clothing, cooking, or sanitation. Are your children crawling around naked all the time? Is their diet restricted to grubs, raw vegetables and pond water? Do you refuse to wipe your child's ass with anything but a pinecone or the back of your left hand? Why would you insist on caveman standards? Is it somehow difficult for you to believe that a responsible parent could use pretty much everything in his modern environment in appropriate ways during child rearing?
Why would you choose to give them a mind-numbing electronic gadget instead of a mind-engaging electronic gadget? Do you give your children mind-numbing wooden toys? How about reading them mind-numbing books? Golly I don't give my children mind-numbing anything. Any electronic gadget used in my household engages the mind, like everything else in my house.
Why would you substitute the acquisition of developmental language skills and the attendant ability to relate and empathise - with a fixation on shiny lights and noises?
False dichotomy and straw man. Thanks, I'm looking for an option you didn't list: acquisition of all sorts of skills, not just the subset you want to restrict your children to.
Easy. It is Microsoft's fault. So, we agree then?
Yes, like I said, major changes. I suspect you don't really mean major changes, though, you mean ONLY api changes. In that case, why? Why is only broken backwards compatibility sufficient to increment the primary decimal? I don't think that is 'best'.
I'm not proposing that government regulate open source version numbers or take away anyone's "free"dom. I'm critiquing the use of version numbers, by some people, as silly. People are "free" to number as they wish but that doesn't shield them from the rest of us rolling our eyes toward them.
If your Mustangs were numbered as the Mustang 3.0 and the Mustang 5.5, you would still know which one is newer. Using dates is another meaningful way to version software -- that is, the versions still have meaning. But if all you use is a serial number which only increments once per decade then those version are meaningless. My claim is that developing software actively for a decade, doing a huge amount of work, and then merely bumping the secondary decimal shows that the person has some kind of irrational desire to increase their versions as little as possible.
It depends on how you define it. My guess is that they developed a functional prototype, hence, "they built it". It was built; they built it.
But that semantic point wasn't the important part, it was merely a tool to point out the source of the problem -- just like you said, Apple. It would seem odd to me if they folded their business plan and refunded money *without* explaining the problem. You objected to them blaming Apple, and I'm saying blaming Apple was required, because they had to explain themselves and Apple was to blame (assuming what they say is true).
Can anyone explain why some open source* people have a fetish for tiny version numbers? If you are going to spend ten years developing a new version, is that REALLY not worth a primary version number? What is the attraction to having versions as near to zero as possible? In a dotted-decimal notation, why do some people think only the second decimal should be incremented, and at that only once per decade, and the first decimal should remain zero forever?
The primary decimal should be zero when the project is started and should be 1 when it reaches initial functional maturity. Major versions with substantial new features warrant primary-decimal increments. Minor features warrant secondary-decimal increments. Bug fixes warrant tertiary-decimal increments. Otherwise one of the main benefits of the dotted-decimal notation is lost.
* and not other open source cf. emacs
Yes! High five, brother. I also gave up on Apple five years ago. It was a sad day because Macs are all I'd ever owned ever since my first LC III in middle school. I'm still coasting on my MacBook Pro, but I gave up on iPods (Android now), gave up on iPads (I have a Transformer), and gave up on desktop Macs (bought a Linux PC).
What pushed me over the edge? Apple intentionally crippled their iPods to require $49.99 Apple-branded video cables whereas the previous generation of iPod accepted video cords that cost six cents (literally, not figuratively, six cents). I knew the good behavior from Apple was over, I foresaw the future, and I went to greener pastures. I sure wish I could go back to Apple and enjoy their nice shiny products but alas that would make me feel like a schmuck.
I'm truly wondering how you could possibly think there would be a statement from Apple. Seriously, are you expecting this?
"Hi, we're Apple. Fuck these cord folks, they can eat a dick. We will never allow them to build their product because fuck 'em, that's why. PS Android can eat our buttholes."
or
"Hi, we're Apple. These cord folks can't license our 'property' because we are illegally conspiring against competing products. Sorry, we'll loosen up when we absolutely have to like in the glory days of 1998-1999. Remember those days? With USB and open source and all that good stuff? Yeah, man, good memories. Hey would you like to buy an iPhone in yet another size?"
I'll go back to Apple (five years 'clean') after they apologize for their actions. This is the same standard I use for Microsoft (successfully never bought a single thing from them) and the Republican party.
Yes. You are missing that they weren't trying to sell a USB hub. The world already has a lot of USB hubs. So, you are missing that this is a different product than the one you described.
Is that actually true, or is it only true in the same way that you "can't patent obvious ideas"?
Yeah, totally, except for not at all.
"it turns out they couldn't [build it]"
No, it didn't turn out they couldn't build it, it turned out Apple wouldn't let them build it. They easily could have built it, it's a simple matter of a few wires and molded plastic. "Building it" wasn't the problem here, was it?
A female USB port doesn't solve the problem because that isn't an integrated cord. The world already has USB hubs, so another USB hub isn't the product they were trying to build.
There is no evidence or reason to believe that intentionally crippled products will cause Apple to lose their customers.
I mean, they lost me five years ago, but I'm in a vanishingly minuscule minority. Apple hasn't exactly been hurting without me.
"When you do things that are bad for the customer I think it will be bad for them.”
LOL, I can tell this guy isn't swayed by things like reality or evidence. When has fucking customers ever turned out badly for a company? Okay, yeah, every now and then it happens, but way way over 99% of products and companies at any given time are proactively going out of their way to fuck customers for nothing but the fun of it.
Probably because -- and I'm just guessing here -- then it wouldn't be an integrated cord thus making it a completely different product. Note that the world already has USB hubs; presumably this product was supposed to be different than that.
Can you fax me the answer? I want to blog it.