I had a 240 volvo from 91 lose power assist and I could not tell a difrence unless I was going 5mph or so.
Actually, most of the newer cars use power assist (my Probe included) rather than pure power steering, but having really wide tires makes a *huge* difference. Your Volvo used 185/17R14s compared to the 225/50R16s on my Probe. Believe it or not, that actually makes a pretty big difference. However, being very safety oriented, Volvo may have also engineered the steering mechanism differently to make it easier to use in a loss of power event.
Have you ever driven a car without power steering? You won't notice a difference at higher speeds, actually the difference between manual and power steering becomes negligible as soon as you're going faster than 20 kph or so.
Erm, you do know that on some power steering designs, a power steering failure is VERY different from a car that doesn't have any power steering to begin with, right? Admittedly, it still gets easier at high speeds, but my Dad used to have a luxury car with full power steering that I would challenge even the strongest man to be able to steer effectively at anything less than about 35 mph. In fact, I think the steering column would have broken first.
I used to have a '93 Ford Probe GT with power assisted steering. One day the tensioning wheel for the belt popped off and I was left without the power assist. Since the car uses 225/50R16s, it was incredibly difficult to turn into the service station even at 20 mph, and I was concerned that the steering wheel would break. I can only begin to image what it would have been like if it had used the same power steering mechanism as my Dad's car.
Just to let you know, we have *not* subscribed to everything the Dr. Sears methodology, although some parts of it are useful. How long we wait depends highly on the situation.
He often wakes up, stretches a lot, and then starts making little sounds to let us know he's awake...
Generally, when they do this that means they aren't as likely to go back to sleep. We didn't have much problem with this after the first 9 or 10 weeks with either of our children because we put them on a feed/play schedule during the day that makes sure they sleep at night. During the first couple months, however, we of course popped in to check on them as quickly as possible.
He sometimes wakes up and is immediately crying outright, which sometimes stops as soon as he sees one of us or we put a hand on his chest, but often is due to suddenly realizing he is hungry or needs to pee
We had almost none of the hunger issues with our son, and only a few times (particularly during growth spurts) with hunger in our daughter. That's mostly because of the feeding schedule we put them on during the daytime. After the first couple months, both children were easily sleeping nearly six hours during the night, which is a welcome relief for most new parents. Regarding peeing, we don't leave our children to sleep in a wet diaper. However, I do have to say that neither of our children cared much whether their diaper was wet. I think that's because today's diapers are so much better. If you use cloth diapers, you can be pretty much assured that your child will let you know when they are wet.
How long is "long enough" to be sure that attention is required? Babies who are left to cry for more than 90 seconds need lots more time to calm down after mom/whoever starts to soothe them (see The Baby Book by Dr. Sears for the citation). Hope you're not just leaving her to cry herself back to sleep:-/
"Long enough" depends on the cry. We quickly learned to tell the difference in cries from our children. Although it's true that babies crying longer than 90 seconds are more difficult to calm, it's also true that if they are just doing the "I really don't want to be sleeping right now" cry instead of the "come help me, I'm in trouble" cry, you can let them cry for about 15 minutes or so and they'll settle themselves down and go right back to sleep. And no, she didn't "cry herself to sleep." She stopped crying, settled down, and went peacefully back to sleep. In addition, I can tell you that getting to a crying child within 90 seconds from a sound sleep is not easy to do, so I'm definitely not going to run the risk of slamming into the door frame or the wall while I stumble around in a stupor trying to get to my child before that magic 90 seconds is up. I can also tell you (in case you haven't reached that point yet), that there is a time when they are toddlers that they decide they don't want to sleep anymore. You can calm them all you want, but when you leave the room, they'll stand up in their crib and start crying again. You'll most likely be forced to let them cry themselves to sleep. You can also tell by that cry that they aren't in pain or anything. They just don't want to go to sleep. During that time, if you don't let them learn to get to sleep on their own, you may end up with a five-year-old that can't fall asleep anywhere but in your bed with you. Things that usually help greatly during that time are establishing bedtime rituals like story reading / telling, listening to music, singing, etc. The child becomes used to these things, and when that process starts every night, it calms them and gets them ready for bed.
I cannot think of a single circumstance that I would leave my children with an untrustworthy babysitter. Parent poster is right : "being there" is the best way to monitor.
No, the poster is *not* right. "Being there" when you get a babysitter defeats the whole purpose. However, like you, I advocate using only trustworthy babysitters. The poster that I replied to was just being ignorant and was implying that the parents don't want the responsibility of watching their child, when in fact they were just looking for a little extra insurance when trusting a babysitter. Not a good way to keep trustworthy babysitters, though.
I agree with everything you say, but if you take a look back at the post I was replying to, you'll see that my animosity was directed at the poster's assertion that the parents didn't want the responsibility of watching their child.
As a parent, I understand the fear of leaving a child with someone else, especially for the first time. But I also am fully aware that all the technology in the world today isn't going to allow me to get home in time to do anything should the babysitter do something to harm my child. It's just better to choose someone you trust.
I partly agree with you, although we found the monitor to be very useful after the baby was asleep and we were in another part of the house where crying couldn't be heard. We just turned the monitor on really low (so we couldn't hear breathing and stuff) and when crying started we would wait long enough to be sure that attention was required. Responding immediately to a cry (unless it is an urgent one) is not usually a good idea because babies tend to cry a little in between sleep cycles (about every 45 minutes) until they get better at settling themselves to sleep.
We also found the monitor very useful for the second child. She has the loudest cry of any baby I've heard, even when she's just settling herself. With her door and ours open upstairs, just transitioning from one sleep cycle to the other would wake us up. With the doors closed, we couldn't hear her well enough to respond in an emergency, so instead we turned the monitor on *downstairs* and closed her door. That way, the sound we heard was at just the right level to wake us up in an emergency.
Have you thought about trying good old fashioned parenting? Perhaps "being there" is the best way to monitor your child...
You know what, I'm sick of this crap everytime somebody brings up this subject. Take a look at the whole question. He's talking about monitoring while a babysitter is there, not about ignoring the child while both parents are home. As a parent, I can attest to the fact that you need to get away every once in a while so that you aren't tempted to hand your child over to scientific research or something like that. The problem is that there are very few trustworthy babysitters, and those that we have been able to find are always in high demand. Personally, I share others' sentiments that it is much better to get someone you can trust than it is to monitor, but I also understand the frustration and anxiety of leaving your child with someone else.
"Old fashioned" parents also had to leave their children with babysitters, but you can bet that if the technology to monitor the baby (and babysitter) had been available, they'd have considered using it too.
You really shouldn't have let him bait you into using the same style of argument. Having lived in both the US and Europe, I can assure you that there are equal shares of idiots on both sides of the pond. Never let a person like that cause you to respond in kind. Besides, I think Douglas Adams had the right idea... I wonder if this guy is a hairdresser...;)
You must because you are doing a very good job of it.
Are you from the US?
??? Flamebait anyone?
I don't want to bring up the US's recent history of culling all funds from environmental projects, and saying, lets fsck the world for our economy!
Well, clearly you *did* want to bring it up.
I am only saying this because it seems fine to shrug all the blame onto 'some country where there be dragons and suchlike' and go back to watching some hip crazy tv show.
Perhaps if you'd read the post instead of looking desperately for some reason to say something bad about the United States (there were a lot of better choices, by the way), you would have noticed that blame wasn't being placed on China. China is a very rapidly developing nation, and as such has enjoyed some relaxation to environmental standards to help foster that growth. Now that they are well on their way, they are accelerating their attempts to comply with the same environmental policies to which the rest of the world tries to adhere. The grandparent poster was just trying to point out that there are still an awful lot of CFCs being pumped into the atmosphere.
I hate to tell you this, and I'm definitely not saying that the thin ozone layer isn't a problem for you, but it's likely that your intolerance for the sun is based more on age than on the hole in the ozone. What would be more telling is to look at the kids going to the beach now. Do they burn like you or are they getting the golden tan you used to get?
Remember when your grandmother owned a VHS player and wasn't interested in a new fangled DVD player?
I must be getting old. No, I don't remember that because I don't think my grandmother was ever aware of DVD technology. What I remember is when my grandparents bought this new fangled VCR and couldn't even manage to
Set the clock to make it stop flashing
Scan through the channels
Understand that in order to watch a movie, the video signal had to be on "VCR" rather than "TV" or "Cable" or "Ant".
Understand that in order to record a television show you had to set the VCR itself on the channel you wanted to record (I don't think they ever ended up recording ANYTHING)
Figure out that you can actually record one show while watching another. (OK, I'll grant this was probably too advanced for many VCR users)
Does IBM Open Source everythig they do? How about Novell? Red Hat?
Umm, I think you missed the point the parent was making. The issue isn't whether Microsoft submits all of the software as Open Source. It's the fact that they are trying to litigate against Open Source while at the same time releasing some of their own projects as Open Source. I don't think you can make the same argument about IBM, Novell or Red Hat.
Isn't the GPS supposed to keep you from getting lost in the first place?
Yeah, but since the thing has such a low battery life, you would have to keep it turned off until after you already *are* lost. Either that, or keep your outdoor treks down to something significantly less than 8 hours... like maybe a trip to the Six Flags Safari...
Not nearly enough. I can't think of any outdoor trek that lasted only 8 hours. Maybe the intent is to only turn the device on when you actually need it, but you can bet that anything in cold weather is going to bleed that 8 hours down to something much less. Any serious outdoor-ready device needs to have several days of battery life, especially if the customer would like to use the built-in GPS to do something as novel as finding their way back to civilization after getting themselves hopelessly lost.
How does receiving by WebDAV help spammers that much?
Please take a minute to read the article. Spammers are using WebDAV to SEND emails from the hotmail accounts. They are getting around the 100 msg per day limit by opening multiple hotmail accounts, and then scripting a session that divides of the spam load between the accounts. Also, bear in mind that WebDAV allows you to both read and WRITE documents over the web.
Amiga? Three minutes boot?
A 500 from floppy? Maybe, but then you're comparing apples to oranges.
A 1200 from hdd - about five seconds.
Dang youngsters...think they know everything.;) Even the Amiga 500 took less than three minutes to boot from floppy. But the original Amiga 1000 didn't have a Kickstart ROM. It instead had to load Kickstart from floppy. So, everytime you booted the system, you inserted a Kickstart floppy and waited. After it was finished loading that, you had to swap it with a Workbench floppy to get AmigaDOS and the desktop up and running. The whole process usually took about 3 minutes or so.
Sorry, I just woke up so I'm not going to touch on everything
Maybe, but you appear to be more on top of things than all the people who didn't bother to do a shred of research before accusing Adobe of just inventing a new format for no other reason than to control the market. I wouldn't put that kind of tactic past them, but people should at least do some verification for their evil market domination theories....
The fact that Gore had more votes but lost is a problem of the electoral college because it favors votes of people in rural areas instead of one man one vote. That is a problem that we must fix.
No, we don't need to fix this. If you fix this, then all of politics will be geared towards urbanites, leaving rural dwellers completely out in the cold. You might think that allowing this to happen is OK, but the attrocities that would get shoved onto the rural dwellers in the name of winning the election would be unacceptable. Also bear in mind that any state can divide its electoral vote in any manner it sees fit. There are at least two states that split the electoral votes in such a way that the electoral votes may be given for more than one candidate. If they wanted to, they could take the popular vote within their own state and then pick electoral votes (from their allocation) that most closely approximates the popular vote percentages. Likewise, a state could choose not to hold elections at all for federal postions, instead having the GOP of that state choose their electors. In fact, they could even choose their votes by flipping a coin. The system that we use was partly chosen so that individual states could maintain internal sovereignty. It was very important for the acceptance of a constitution. There is nothing really wrong with the electoral system, other than the fact that the electoral votes may (for a time) be unfairly divided between the states. The census is supposed to take care of that problem, but maybe every 10 years isn't enough.
Not many, given that hardly anyone is hard-nosed enough to create a successful business. It takes guts and giving up any other things in your life for a long time to build a successful business. I'd much rather be an employee working 40 hours a week and have a life and I bet I'm in the majority.
I completely agree. But you have to admit that the possibility is there for anybody determined enough.
Slashdot Mirror
It really rattled you didn't it? You can't even form complete sentences now. ;)
Actually, most of the newer cars use power assist (my Probe included) rather than pure power steering, but having really wide tires makes a *huge* difference. Your Volvo used 185/17R14s compared to the 225/50R16s on my Probe. Believe it or not, that actually makes a pretty big difference. However, being very safety oriented, Volvo may have also engineered the steering mechanism differently to make it easier to use in a loss of power event.
Erm, you do know that on some power steering designs, a power steering failure is VERY different from a car that doesn't have any power steering to begin with, right? Admittedly, it still gets easier at high speeds, but my Dad used to have a luxury car with full power steering that I would challenge even the strongest man to be able to steer effectively at anything less than about 35 mph. In fact, I think the steering column would have broken first.
I used to have a '93 Ford Probe GT with power assisted steering. One day the tensioning wheel for the belt popped off and I was left without the power assist. Since the car uses 225/50R16s, it was incredibly difficult to turn into the service station even at 20 mph, and I was concerned that the steering wheel would break. I can only begin to image what it would have been like if it had used the same power steering mechanism as my Dad's car.
But you need to be *very* careful about this at 120 mph.
He often wakes up, stretches a lot, and then starts making little sounds to let us know he's awake...
Generally, when they do this that means they aren't as likely to go back to sleep. We didn't have much problem with this after the first 9 or 10 weeks with either of our children because we put them on a feed/play schedule during the day that makes sure they sleep at night. During the first couple months, however, we of course popped in to check on them as quickly as possible.
He sometimes wakes up and is immediately crying outright, which sometimes stops as soon as he sees one of us or we put a hand on his chest, but often is due to suddenly realizing he is hungry or needs to pee
We had almost none of the hunger issues with our son, and only a few times (particularly during growth spurts) with hunger in our daughter. That's mostly because of the feeding schedule we put them on during the daytime. After the first couple months, both children were easily sleeping nearly six hours during the night, which is a welcome relief for most new parents. Regarding peeing, we don't leave our children to sleep in a wet diaper. However, I do have to say that neither of our children cared much whether their diaper was wet. I think that's because today's diapers are so much better. If you use cloth diapers, you can be pretty much assured that your child will let you know when they are wet.
How long is "long enough" to be sure that attention is required? Babies who are left to cry for more than 90 seconds need lots more time to calm down after mom/whoever starts to soothe them (see The Baby Book by Dr. Sears for the citation). Hope you're not just leaving her to cry herself back to sleep :-/
"Long enough" depends on the cry. We quickly learned to tell the difference in cries from our children. Although it's true that babies crying longer than 90 seconds are more difficult to calm, it's also true that if they are just doing the "I really don't want to be sleeping right now" cry instead of the "come help me, I'm in trouble" cry, you can let them cry for about 15 minutes or so and they'll settle themselves down and go right back to sleep. And no, she didn't "cry herself to sleep." She stopped crying, settled down, and went peacefully back to sleep. In addition, I can tell you that getting to a crying child within 90 seconds from a sound sleep is not easy to do, so I'm definitely not going to run the risk of slamming into the door frame or the wall while I stumble around in a stupor trying to get to my child before that magic 90 seconds is up. I can also tell you (in case you haven't reached that point yet), that there is a time when they are toddlers that they decide they don't want to sleep anymore. You can calm them all you want, but when you leave the room, they'll stand up in their crib and start crying again. You'll most likely be forced to let them cry themselves to sleep. You can also tell by that cry that they aren't in pain or anything. They just don't want to go to sleep. During that time, if you don't let them learn to get to sleep on their own, you may end up with a five-year-old that can't fall asleep anywhere but in your bed with you. Things that usually help greatly during that time are establishing bedtime rituals like story reading / telling, listening to music, singing, etc. The child becomes used to these things, and when that process starts every night, it calms them and gets them ready for bed.
No, the poster is *not* right. "Being there" when you get a babysitter defeats the whole purpose. However, like you, I advocate using only trustworthy babysitters. The poster that I replied to was just being ignorant and was implying that the parents don't want the responsibility of watching their child, when in fact they were just looking for a little extra insurance when trusting a babysitter. Not a good way to keep trustworthy babysitters, though.
As a parent, I understand the fear of leaving a child with someone else, especially for the first time. But I also am fully aware that all the technology in the world today isn't going to allow me to get home in time to do anything should the babysitter do something to harm my child. It's just better to choose someone you trust.
We also found the monitor very useful for the second child. She has the loudest cry of any baby I've heard, even when she's just settling herself. With her door and ours open upstairs, just transitioning from one sleep cycle to the other would wake us up. With the doors closed, we couldn't hear her well enough to respond in an emergency, so instead we turned the monitor on *downstairs* and closed her door. That way, the sound we heard was at just the right level to wake us up in an emergency.
You know what, I'm sick of this crap everytime somebody brings up this subject. Take a look at the whole question. He's talking about monitoring while a babysitter is there, not about ignoring the child while both parents are home. As a parent, I can attest to the fact that you need to get away every once in a while so that you aren't tempted to hand your child over to scientific research or something like that. The problem is that there are very few trustworthy babysitters, and those that we have been able to find are always in high demand. Personally, I share others' sentiments that it is much better to get someone you can trust than it is to monitor, but I also understand the frustration and anxiety of leaving your child with someone else.
"Old fashioned" parents also had to leave their children with babysitters, but you can bet that if the technology to monitor the baby (and babysitter) had been available, they'd have considered using it too.
Maybe this explains Google's recent creative marketing for careers?
You really shouldn't have let him bait you into using the same style of argument. Having lived in both the US and Europe, I can assure you that there are equal shares of idiots on both sides of the pond. Never let a person like that cause you to respond in kind. Besides, I think Douglas Adams had the right idea... I wonder if this guy is a hairdresser... ;)
You must because you are doing a very good job of it.
Are you from the US?
??? Flamebait anyone?
I don't want to bring up the US's recent history of culling all funds from environmental projects, and saying, lets fsck the world for our economy!
Well, clearly you *did* want to bring it up.
I am only saying this because it seems fine to shrug all the blame onto 'some country where there be dragons and suchlike' and go back to watching some hip crazy tv show.
Perhaps if you'd read the post instead of looking desperately for some reason to say something bad about the United States (there were a lot of better choices, by the way), you would have noticed that blame wasn't being placed on China. China is a very rapidly developing nation, and as such has enjoyed some relaxation to environmental standards to help foster that growth. Now that they are well on their way, they are accelerating their attempts to comply with the same environmental policies to which the rest of the world tries to adhere. The grandparent poster was just trying to point out that there are still an awful lot of CFCs being pumped into the atmosphere.
No offense.Yeah, right.
Just my 0.02EUR
Please keep it.
I hate to tell you this, and I'm definitely not saying that the thin ozone layer isn't a problem for you, but it's likely that your intolerance for the sun is based more on age than on the hole in the ozone. What would be more telling is to look at the kids going to the beach now. Do they burn like you or are they getting the golden tan you used to get?
I must be getting old. No, I don't remember that because I don't think my grandmother was ever aware of DVD technology. What I remember is when my grandparents bought this new fangled VCR and couldn't even manage to
- Set the clock to make it stop flashing
- Scan through the channels
- Understand that in order to watch a movie, the video signal had to be on "VCR" rather than "TV" or "Cable" or "Ant".
- Understand that in order to record a television show you had to set the VCR itself on the channel you wanted to record (I don't think they ever ended up recording ANYTHING)
- Figure out that you can actually record one show while watching another. (OK, I'll grant this was probably too advanced for many VCR users)
Thank you for making me feel old.Omigosh! /. is being invaded by... *gasp* ... non-geeks!
Umm, I think you missed the point the parent was making. The issue isn't whether Microsoft submits all of the software as Open Source. It's the fact that they are trying to litigate against Open Source while at the same time releasing some of their own projects as Open Source. I don't think you can make the same argument about IBM, Novell or Red Hat.
Yeah, but since the thing has such a low battery life, you would have to keep it turned off until after you already *are* lost. Either that, or keep your outdoor treks down to something significantly less than 8 hours... like maybe a trip to the Six Flags Safari...
I agree completely.
Not nearly enough. I can't think of any outdoor trek that lasted only 8 hours. Maybe the intent is to only turn the device on when you actually need it, but you can bet that anything in cold weather is going to bleed that 8 hours down to something much less. Any serious outdoor-ready device needs to have several days of battery life, especially if the customer would like to use the built-in GPS to do something as novel as finding their way back to civilization after getting themselves hopelessly lost.
Please take a minute to read the article. Spammers are using WebDAV to SEND emails from the hotmail accounts. They are getting around the 100 msg per day limit by opening multiple hotmail accounts, and then scripting a session that divides of the spam load between the accounts. Also, bear in mind that WebDAV allows you to both read and WRITE documents over the web.
apples to oranges.
A 1200 from hdd - about five seconds.
Dang youngsters...think they know everything. ;) Even the Amiga 500 took less than three minutes to boot from floppy. But the original Amiga 1000 didn't have a Kickstart ROM. It instead had to load Kickstart from floppy. So, everytime you booted the system, you inserted a Kickstart floppy and waited. After it was finished loading that, you had to swap it with a Workbench floppy to get AmigaDOS and the desktop up and running. The whole process usually took about 3 minutes or so.
Maybe, but you appear to be more on top of things than all the people who didn't bother to do a shred of research before accusing Adobe of just inventing a new format for no other reason than to control the market. I wouldn't put that kind of tactic past them, but people should at least do some verification for their evil market domination theories....
No, we don't need to fix this. If you fix this, then all of politics will be geared towards urbanites, leaving rural dwellers completely out in the cold. You might think that allowing this to happen is OK, but the attrocities that would get shoved onto the rural dwellers in the name of winning the election would be unacceptable. Also bear in mind that any state can divide its electoral vote in any manner it sees fit. There are at least two states that split the electoral votes in such a way that the electoral votes may be given for more than one candidate. If they wanted to, they could take the popular vote within their own state and then pick electoral votes (from their allocation) that most closely approximates the popular vote percentages. Likewise, a state could choose not to hold elections at all for federal postions, instead having the GOP of that state choose their electors. In fact, they could even choose their votes by flipping a coin. The system that we use was partly chosen so that individual states could maintain internal sovereignty. It was very important for the acceptance of a constitution. There is nothing really wrong with the electoral system, other than the fact that the electoral votes may (for a time) be unfairly divided between the states. The census is supposed to take care of that problem, but maybe every 10 years isn't enough.
It takes guts and giving up any other things in your life for a long time to build a successful business. I'd much rather be an employee working 40 hours a week and have a life and I bet I'm in the majority.
I completely agree. But you have to admit that the possibility is there for anybody determined enough.
Man, I wish I could get GMail. I was hoping to get selected for the Beta program, but I think I was too late. Any idea when they'll roll it out?