Not to mention that it's entirely possible there is a variability in 3rd-party avatar locations.
Play 2 accounts on 2 separate computers, and it's possible that while YOU think you are standing only 3' fromthat avatar, they see you as being 6+ feet away.
Common in all but a few MMOGs (WW2OL being one of the few where 3rd party and 1st person representations are tracked to a high resolution, IMO).
So this 'data' is valueless unless the researchers are ALWAYS looking at the first person data.
Yet I think most rational people would see that there is *some* small difference between: - an online gambline site soliciting business from people where it's illegal (if 'gambling' isn't a particular bogey for you, then just substitute prostitution, child porn, drugs, guns, or whatever) and being prosecuted for doing so - a government telling news agencies what to report with the threat of total blackout on news reports if they don't comply.
Microsoft did not really "patch" their DRM. This wasn't a code change. Their DRM was designed to be updateable in the event that it was compromised.
So is their OS, allegedly. So you're saying somehow that an update isn't a patch?
Fine.
Then I don't want a security "patch" to fix [whatever is today's security exploit in XP], I'd like an "update" instead. Does that mean I'll get it in days instead of months?
I RTFA and am continually amazed at all the people who bother to post with "Ah, I find WoW to be too boring." or "There's nothing to do" or "There's no story, it's just grinding quests."
OK, we got it - you didn't like the game. Now eff off. 7 million other people disagree.
See, Blizzard is a company. They don't have a sacrosanct goal to keep YOU entertained. If what they do appeals to 15 people who are willing to pay (note that part), and annoys/frustrates 5 other people, that's a successful strategy. In Blizzard's terms, if they offend 1 million hardcore gamers, but bring in 7 million casuals - that is a WIN (entirely setting aside the fact that for the same $15/month, a hardcore player is going to use FAR more bandwidth than a casual, be more hypercritical of everything, whinge more on the forums, all of which cost the company more of their own cash....)
Unless the 5 annoyed people are willing to pay 3x as much as the first 15, it makes business sense to appeal to the mass. It's democracy in action, and people vote with their dollars. It's the same reason that Ultimate Deer Hunter 3D is/was commonly near the top of the game sales charts. I might find it a joke, any regular game player might find it a joke, but people BUY it.
Companies are after your dollars, not your aesthetic approval (except insofar as it brings in dollars). Don't like it? Try to pay your rent with aesthetic approval and see how far it gets you.
Correct. By the same logic, humans have been "using" nano technology forever, since mitochondrial structures take advantage of nano-geometry. So do T-cells. For that matter, humans have been using "genetic engineering" for millenia too!
Whew, I didn't realize were so intrinsically advanced!
Or, it could be a complete misunderstanding of the word "use" by a slashdot editor to contrive to make an otherwise boring story interesting. Hm.
Shut up, clearly you must be a religious fanatic, a rabid Bush supporter, or in the pay of the oil lobby - probably all three.
Just assume I threw in here some strawman arguments and maybe a disparaging comment about your ancestry. Then a sneering dismissal of any fact you care to present, if I don't outright ignore it.
There, now we've covered the extent of the global warming 'debate' in 2 posts.
While I understand it's intellectually easier for you to simply dismiss my comments as those of some religious nutjob, I'm afraid I don't fit your view. Haven't gone to church in years, not even sure I believe in the idea of God. So where does that leave you?
Let's go back to the topic, perhaps?
So you claim that the right to say "FUCK" is established in the Bill of Rights. So by your logic, I can say FUCK wherever I want? Oh wait, no, I can't. Dozens of court cases (many going all the way to the Supreme Court) regulate speech and reconcile this with the US Constitution as being in the public interest. - The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action. - You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization. - June 1973 (Miller v. California), the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection. - The courts have agreed that in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security. - Courts have agreed that the necessity of certain medical procedures (abortion clinics) may not be infringed by protesters exercising their right to Free Speech. - To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a "gag" order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. - Even the time, manner, and place come into play - distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.
This is entirely setting aside the 'public/private' property rights and communal goods rights that we all own as the airways are, I believe, public property but with private leaseholds on it - I don't frankly know the details of that status. I *believe* that part of the lease terms are to comply with FCC decency guidelines. Since you find this particular word so precious, I'll put it in a context that helps you understand: if you sign a FUCKING contract, you'd better FUCKING well conform, or be FUCKING subject to the FUCKING penalties that you FUCKING agreed to by signing your FUCKING name. Does that make sense?
So you claim you can say FUCK and it's protected speech. I'd say that essentially yes you can, with a number of caveats. I'd further say that I have, oh, about 200 years of caselaw on my side with English common law stretching back further than that.
Like the egotist who wrote the post to which I was referring, you can't apparently understand that the social contract requires that EVERYONE moderate their behavior - even you - so that we can all get along with a minimum of acrimony and maximum happiness. OMFG you can't say FUCK whenever you want? Whatever will you do? Perhaps learn a few more adjectives that you can use that the GENERAL CONSENSUS agrees aren't vulgar.
It might even broaden your mind and bring you to understanding that people with whom you disagree might simply be people with a different viewpoint, and not all dismissable as religious wing nuts.
Of course on/., this is "insightful". To me, it's just juvenile egoism shining brightly.
"I like the way the rules help me in one way, I don't like the way the rules constrain me in another way."
At some point, the organism understands that society - the collective "we" that live together - cannot exist without compromise, and the essence of compromise is empathy.
Perhaps you might consider that some of us would prefer that you pollute your own yard, not the collective commons that is the public airwaves.
I'm actually rather disappointed in Gamasutra. It's a site I've come to respect for deep, narrow insights into the 'guts' of game programming and development. Their "what went right/what went wrong" serious is still outstanding.
But this? It's more like "quantum leap" the TV show, you know, where it starts with the premise that the main character doesn't know shit about what he's supposed to be doing?
It's nothing more than a collection of submissions with apparently very little editor review and no explanation of how they came to their conclusions, such as they are. I have no idea how they picked things, but frankly this list has no more (and possibly less) credibility than a list of what Gabe & Tycho played last year.
I mean, they simply posted the (sometime anonymous) comments from people like: "Tribes was one of the first titles that saw the popularization of teamplay and the 'capture the flag' scenario as a critical game element." Um, you mean ASIDE from the plethora of Quake mods that focussed PRECISELY on this like, oh, Teamfortress (which predated Tribes by 3 years)? Fact check, anyone?
I won't diss Half-Life - it really WAS a quantum leap forward in the ARTISTIC presentation of an FPS storyline (eat that, Roger Ebert), but to suggest that it somehow edges out Doom as the genesis of the genre? What universe did they live in?
And FWIW, I'd argue that 'honorable mention' should go to Gamespy. Anyone remember the horrible days of early quake connections? Gamespy (the launcher, as opposed to the megalomaniacal portal-site-empire) was a quantum leap forward in multiplaying, IMO.
I don't want to sound like a party pooper, but is a $250 Lego set even superficially meant for children?
I'm not destitute, but I have a hard time justifying a $50 present for a child, much less a $250 one.
I'm NOT saying the system isn't worth it, and I'm NOT suggesting that LEGO lower the price for what seems like a really cool thing. (Then again, LEGO have never, ever been a 'reasonably priced toy' in any guise, so let's not kid ourselves that they couldn't price this at 40% off and probably double or triple the people that could afford one while still making a hefty $$.)
Maybe I just don't live in the same world as the rest of you? But seriously, how many 10-14 year olds are ever going to get this?
The question is simple: what can a girl in IT do when she finds herself on the outside of those cliques of boy coworkers?
Your male coworkers know that "shag the boss" (double points if she's a woman too), or "occasionally go topless" would actually be good tips, but their value is probably lost in the blazing glare of stereotype-validation. (shrug)
If the text is to be believed, it does 1 thing firefox doesn't.
Fit on a 5.5" DSDD Floppy.
Are a lot of people doing much web browsing from pre-1992 computers? By 1990, IIRC, the 3.5" floppy was pretty much on every system, and by 1992 the 5.25" was pretty much GONE.
Perhaps it was termed 'Orwellian' because it's a) fiction b) an effort to reweave fact to produce a visceral emotional response in the vast majority of ignorant sheep, hoping they disregard the details c) aimed at making political mileage out of subtle misdirection d) all of the above
Of course, I'm talking about the STORY, not the subject of the story.
Last time the DoHS had promulgated its latest batch of unfunded mandates, the City of Minneapolis immediately cut [b]firefighters[/b] and [b]policemen[/b], blaming the Feds. Nothing else in the entire city budget could be cut before they got to the two most critical city services, eh?
In the words of Anakin....
on
Marketing Mozilla
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Firefox may need to evolve into more than just a browser. Please don't do it!
I use Firefox because it's simple, it has a minimal resource footprint (unless you start getting addicted to extensions (*looks sternly at Forecastfox*)), and above all renders QUICKLY.
I don't know why IE can't replicate this, but still IE takes forever to render some pages long after Firefox is done loading. But that nimbleness is precisely what keeps me with Firefox. Start loading it with everything including the kitchen sink, and I personally will find the next, simpler browser.
Not particularly relevant, but you're aiming about 12-13 years too late.
V:TM came out in 1991 at Origins, IIRC. Runequest (1978) was an entirely skill-based system without any hint of classes, published only 3 years after D&D.
I'm so ashamed I knew this without referring to Wiki.:(
(False) Hope, (mistaken) Certainty, and (presumed) Knowledge?
We swallowed the 'OMG compact flourescents will save teh WORld!_!!EHUO" hype and bought several for our home 2001-2002, hoping to find that they were "all that".
They weren't.
1) Kitchen light - on MOST of the time. Annoying high-pitched buzzing caused us to try to leave it OFF most of the time (ironic way to save energy, I guess). By a few months down the road, it was so dim that we could barely tell it was on during the day (needed to have it on to light shadowed areas).
2) kitchen-table light - on a rheostat. Don't even BOTHER putting these on a rheostat. You don't even get the normal span of an incandescent out of it.
3) back porch light - whups, it gets down to -30 F on our back porch in the winter. Compact flourescent + bitter cold = hahahahaahah
4) table lamp in family room - after only a month or so it was extremely slow to light, light output decreased notably over time, didn't get much more life out of it than an incandescent (certainly not enough to justify the price).
So maybe they work wonderfully and perfectly for some OTHER people in this universe. But we neither saw the utility, value, nor, particularly, the quality of light that it would take to prompt us to change.
Frankly, I'm hoping LEDs are coming soooner rather than later. I'm unconvinced about compact flourescents.
More significantly, isn't unhappiness pretty much what drives all human achievement?
I mean, Salk didn't develop the polio vaccine because he was delighted with people dying of polio, did he? On a more primitive level, would you ever fix the leaky roof if it didn't BOTHER you?
I understand the attraction of chemically (or in this case, genetically) suppressing people's psychoses if their behavior is dangerous, but personally it crosses an ethical line when we start modifying behavior because people are merely unhappy.
At least as far as Americans go: - we never need shelter anymore, but now 50% of kids have some sort of asthma. - we never want for food, so now obesity is epidemic - we're making it increasingly hard to fail, so our welfare class is ever-growing - we rarely face any consequence for our stupid choices, so we have a society run by lawyers and lawsuits
What will be the consequence of medicating away unhappiness? Are we condemned to fade away into decadent narcissism with the blissful empty smile of the opium addict? Thanks but no, I'd rather BE unhappy.
I don't care what he does until something happens. THAT'S when I spring into dad-mode. THAT'S when I start to ask questions and yell and devise new and cunning punishments.
Nice blindside for the kid.
Let's see, he'll just do 'whatever' until he crosses some imaginary behavioral line, THEN his Dad will spring out yelling and inventing 'cunning punishments'? That's not parenting, that's like some twisted psychological experiment. All it's going to teach the kid is a) rules are arbitrary and unpredictable b) paranoia
That's actually rather cruel.
Maybe you wouldn't have to yell or invent punishments as much, if you'd lay out expected behaviors in advance? Perhaps reward positive behavior as well as correcting behavior that's vectored to cross the line BEFORE it becomes a punishment situation?
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that it's entirely possible there is a variability in 3rd-party avatar locations.
Play 2 accounts on 2 separate computers, and it's possible that while YOU think you are standing only 3' fromthat avatar, they see you as being 6+ feet away.
Common in all but a few MMOGs (WW2OL being one of the few where 3rd party and 1st person representations are tracked to a high resolution, IMO).
So this 'data' is valueless unless the researchers are ALWAYS looking at the first person data.
Moral equivalency, how clever.
Yet I think most rational people would see that there is *some* small difference between:
- an online gambline site soliciting business from people where it's illegal (if 'gambling' isn't a particular bogey for you, then just substitute prostitution, child porn, drugs, guns, or whatever) and being prosecuted for doing so
- a government telling news agencies what to report with the threat of total blackout on news reports if they don't comply.
Newsweek, 1984 called, it would like its news back.
This isn't news to anyone that's been playing RPGs.
It's only news to the mass media because so many 'normals' are now getting involved/hooked.
Because the way to teach someone to fish is by simply throwing lots and lots of fish at them?
No wait, that's not right....
Funny, the first thing that came to my mind was prenuptual agreements.
Microsoft did not really "patch" their DRM. This wasn't a code change. Their DRM was designed to be updateable in the event that it was compromised.
So is their OS, allegedly.
So you're saying somehow that an update isn't a patch?
Fine.
Then I don't want a security "patch" to fix [whatever is today's security exploit in XP], I'd like an "update" instead. Does that mean I'll get it in days instead of months?
I RTFA and am continually amazed at all the people who bother to post with "Ah, I find WoW to be too boring." or "There's nothing to do" or "There's no story, it's just grinding quests."
OK, we got it - you didn't like the game. Now eff off. 7 million other people disagree.
See, Blizzard is a company. They don't have a sacrosanct goal to keep YOU entertained. If what they do appeals to 15 people who are willing to pay (note that part), and annoys/frustrates 5 other people, that's a successful strategy. In Blizzard's terms, if they offend 1 million hardcore gamers, but bring in 7 million casuals - that is a WIN (entirely setting aside the fact that for the same $15/month, a hardcore player is going to use FAR more bandwidth than a casual, be more hypercritical of everything, whinge more on the forums, all of which cost the company more of their own cash....)
Unless the 5 annoyed people are willing to pay 3x as much as the first 15, it makes business sense to appeal to the mass. It's democracy in action, and people vote with their dollars. It's the same reason that Ultimate Deer Hunter 3D is/was commonly near the top of the game sales charts. I might find it a joke, any regular game player might find it a joke, but people BUY it.
Companies are after your dollars, not your aesthetic approval (except insofar as it brings in dollars). Don't like it? Try to pay your rent with aesthetic approval and see how far it gets you.
Correct. By the same logic, humans have been "using" nano technology forever, since mitochondrial structures take advantage of nano-geometry. So do T-cells. For that matter, humans have been using "genetic engineering" for millenia too!
Whew, I didn't realize were so intrinsically advanced!
Or, it could be a complete misunderstanding of the word "use" by a slashdot editor to contrive to make an otherwise boring story interesting. Hm.
Shut up, clearly you must be a religious fanatic, a rabid Bush supporter, or in the pay of the oil lobby - probably all three.
Just assume I threw in here some strawman arguments and maybe a disparaging comment about your ancestry. Then a sneering dismissal of any fact you care to present, if I don't outright ignore it.
There, now we've covered the extent of the global warming 'debate' in 2 posts.
Headline: WoW still dominates MMORPG market. Nothing else to write about. Game journalists thinking of getting real jobs.
While I understand it's intellectually easier for you to simply dismiss my comments as those of some religious nutjob, I'm afraid I don't fit your view. Haven't gone to church in years, not even sure I believe in the idea of God. So where does that leave you?
Let's go back to the topic, perhaps?
So you claim that the right to say "FUCK" is established in the Bill of Rights. So by your logic, I can say FUCK wherever I want? Oh wait, no, I can't. Dozens of court cases (many going all the way to the Supreme Court) regulate speech and reconcile this with the US Constitution as being in the public interest.
- The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.
- You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.
- June 1973 (Miller v. California), the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.
- The courts have agreed that in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.
- Courts have agreed that the necessity of certain medical procedures (abortion clinics) may not be infringed by protesters exercising their right to Free Speech.
- To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a "gag" order on participants in the trial, including attorneys.
- Even the time, manner, and place come into play - distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.
This is entirely setting aside the 'public/private' property rights and communal goods rights that we all own as the airways are, I believe, public property but with private leaseholds on it - I don't frankly know the details of that status. I *believe* that part of the lease terms are to comply with FCC decency guidelines. Since you find this particular word so precious, I'll put it in a context that helps you understand: if you sign a FUCKING contract, you'd better FUCKING well conform, or be FUCKING subject to the FUCKING penalties that you FUCKING agreed to by signing your FUCKING name. Does that make sense?
So you claim you can say FUCK and it's protected speech. I'd say that essentially yes you can, with a number of caveats. I'd further say that I have, oh, about 200 years of caselaw on my side with English common law stretching back further than that.
Like the egotist who wrote the post to which I was referring, you can't apparently understand that the social contract requires that EVERYONE moderate their behavior - even you - so that we can all get along with a minimum of acrimony and maximum happiness. OMFG you can't say FUCK whenever you want? Whatever will you do? Perhaps learn a few more adjectives that you can use that the GENERAL CONSENSUS agrees aren't vulgar.
It might even broaden your mind and bring you to understanding that people with whom you disagree might simply be people with a different viewpoint, and not all dismissable as religious wing nuts.
Of course on /., this is "insightful". To me, it's just juvenile egoism shining brightly.
"I like the way the rules help me in one way, I don't like the way the rules constrain me in another way."
At some point, the organism understands that society - the collective "we" that live together - cannot exist without compromise, and the essence of compromise is empathy.
Perhaps you might consider that some of us would prefer that you pollute your own yard, not the collective commons that is the public airwaves.
So "Duf" makes us smart?
As Duffman would say (Obligatory Simpsons quote): "Oh yeah!"
I'm actually rather disappointed in Gamasutra. It's a site I've come to respect for deep, narrow insights into the 'guts' of game programming and development. Their "what went right/what went wrong" serious is still outstanding.
But this? It's more like "quantum leap" the TV show, you know, where it starts with the premise that the main character doesn't know shit about what he's supposed to be doing?
It's nothing more than a collection of submissions with apparently very little editor review and no explanation of how they came to their conclusions, such as they are. I have no idea how they picked things, but frankly this list has no more (and possibly less) credibility than a list of what Gabe & Tycho played last year.
I mean, they simply posted the (sometime anonymous) comments from people like:
"Tribes was one of the first titles that saw the popularization of teamplay and the 'capture the flag' scenario as a critical game element."
Um, you mean ASIDE from the plethora of Quake mods that focussed PRECISELY on this like, oh, Teamfortress (which predated Tribes by 3 years)? Fact check, anyone?
I won't diss Half-Life - it really WAS a quantum leap forward in the ARTISTIC presentation of an FPS storyline (eat that, Roger Ebert), but to suggest that it somehow edges out Doom as the genesis of the genre? What universe did they live in?
And FWIW, I'd argue that 'honorable mention' should go to Gamespy. Anyone remember the horrible days of early quake connections? Gamespy (the launcher, as opposed to the megalomaniacal portal-site-empire) was a quantum leap forward in multiplaying, IMO.
Gamasutra, that was lame.
I don't want to sound like a party pooper, but is a $250 Lego set even superficially meant for children?
I'm not destitute, but I have a hard time justifying a $50 present for a child, much less a $250 one.
I'm NOT saying the system isn't worth it, and I'm NOT suggesting that LEGO lower the price for what seems like a really cool thing. (Then again, LEGO have never, ever been a 'reasonably priced toy' in any guise, so let's not kid ourselves that they couldn't price this at 40% off and probably double or triple the people that could afford one while still making a hefty $$.)
Maybe I just don't live in the same world as the rest of you? But seriously, how many 10-14 year olds are ever going to get this?
The question is simple: what can a girl in IT do when she finds herself on the outside of those cliques of boy coworkers?
Your male coworkers know that "shag the boss" (double points if she's a woman too), or "occasionally go topless" would actually be good tips, but their value is probably lost in the blazing glare of stereotype-validation. (shrug)
If the text is to be believed, it does 1 thing firefox doesn't.
Fit on a 5.5" DSDD Floppy.
Are a lot of people doing much web browsing from pre-1992 computers?
By 1990, IIRC, the 3.5" floppy was pretty much on every system, and by 1992 the 5.25" was pretty much GONE.
Perhaps it was termed 'Orwellian' because it's
a) fiction
b) an effort to reweave fact to produce a visceral emotional response in the vast majority of ignorant sheep, hoping they disregard the details
c) aimed at making political mileage out of subtle misdirection
d) all of the above
Of course, I'm talking about the STORY, not the subject of the story.
Last time the DoHS had promulgated its latest batch of unfunded mandates, the City of Minneapolis immediately cut [b]firefighters[/b] and [b]policemen[/b], blaming the Feds. Nothing else in the entire city budget could be cut before they got to the two most critical city services, eh?
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Firefox may need to evolve into more than just a browser.
Please don't do it!
I use Firefox because it's simple, it has a minimal resource footprint (unless you start getting addicted to extensions (*looks sternly at Forecastfox*)), and above all renders QUICKLY.
I don't know why IE can't replicate this, but still IE takes forever to render some pages long after Firefox is done loading. But that nimbleness is precisely what keeps me with Firefox. Start loading it with everything including the kitchen sink, and I personally will find the next, simpler browser.
Not particularly relevant, but you're aiming about 12-13 years too late.
:(
V:TM came out in 1991 at Origins, IIRC. Runequest (1978) was an entirely skill-based system without any hint of classes, published only 3 years after D&D.
I'm so ashamed I knew this without referring to Wiki.
What's the opposite of FUD?
(False) Hope, (mistaken) Certainty, and (presumed) Knowledge?
We swallowed the 'OMG compact flourescents will save teh WORld!_!!EHUO" hype and bought several for our home 2001-2002, hoping to find that they were "all that".
They weren't.
1) Kitchen light - on MOST of the time. Annoying high-pitched buzzing caused us to try to leave it OFF most of the time (ironic way to save energy, I guess). By a few months down the road, it was so dim that we could barely tell it was on during the day (needed to have it on to light shadowed areas).
2) kitchen-table light - on a rheostat. Don't even BOTHER putting these on a rheostat. You don't even get the normal span of an incandescent out of it.
3) back porch light - whups, it gets down to -30 F on our back porch in the winter. Compact flourescent + bitter cold = hahahahaahah
4) table lamp in family room - after only a month or so it was extremely slow to light, light output decreased notably over time, didn't get much more life out of it than an incandescent (certainly not enough to justify the price).
So maybe they work wonderfully and perfectly for some OTHER people in this universe. But we neither saw the utility, value, nor, particularly, the quality of light that it would take to prompt us to change.
Frankly, I'm hoping LEDs are coming soooner rather than later. I'm unconvinced about compact flourescents.
...these scientists have never seen my g/f's response when she sees my paycheck in my hand.
"fastest self-powered predatory strike in the animal kingdom" my ass.
More significantly, isn't unhappiness pretty much what drives all human achievement?
I mean, Salk didn't develop the polio vaccine because he was delighted with people dying of polio, did he? On a more primitive level, would you ever fix the leaky roof if it didn't BOTHER you?
I understand the attraction of chemically (or in this case, genetically) suppressing people's psychoses if their behavior is dangerous, but personally it crosses an ethical line when we start modifying behavior because people are merely unhappy.
At least as far as Americans go:
- we never need shelter anymore, but now 50% of kids have some sort of asthma.
- we never want for food, so now obesity is epidemic
- we're making it increasingly hard to fail, so our welfare class is ever-growing
- we rarely face any consequence for our stupid choices, so we have a society run by lawyers and lawsuits
What will be the consequence of medicating away unhappiness? Are we condemned to fade away into decadent narcissism with the blissful empty smile of the opium addict? Thanks but no, I'd rather BE unhappy.
Huh?
I don't care what he does until something happens. THAT'S when I spring into dad-mode. THAT'S when I start to ask questions and yell and devise new and cunning punishments.
Nice blindside for the kid.
Let's see, he'll just do 'whatever' until he crosses some imaginary behavioral line, THEN his Dad will spring out yelling and inventing 'cunning punishments'? That's not parenting, that's like some twisted psychological experiment. All it's going to teach the kid is
a) rules are arbitrary and unpredictable
b) paranoia
That's actually rather cruel.
Maybe you wouldn't have to yell or invent punishments as much, if you'd lay out expected behaviors in advance? Perhaps reward positive behavior as well as correcting behavior that's vectored to cross the line BEFORE it becomes a punishment situation?
In other news today, it was determined that Geologists really don't have enough to do.