Given a crash between two vehicles, you want to be in the heavier one. To a limited extent, it's even good to trade off quality for more mass.
You need to go back to school and learn physics. Given a crash between two vehicles, the one you want to be in is the one whose passenger cell deforms least. Given equal deformation of the passenger cell, the one you want to be in is the is the one which decelerates your body most smoothly.
Twenty years ago my ex-wife crashed her Citroen BX head on into a 40 ton truck at a closing speed of 60mph. After the accident, none of the windows of the Citroen were broken, and all the doors opened and closed properly. Nothing in the passenger cell had deformed at all. The fact that outside the passenger cell the whole of the front of the car had compressed down to about six inches is beside the point: it had done it's job and absorbed the impact. My ex-wife was shaken but unhurt.
I can see that. That wouldn't be a problem for me to accept. It's just that I also happen to see trucks as being much better built and ultimately safer to drive.
In that case you reallydon't know what you're talking about. SUVs have a higher probability of accident and a poorer survivability than modern European or Japanese small cars. They roll over much more easily. They have poorer road holding. And (unsurprisingly) they consistently perform worse in crash tests.
In order for the US to transition to rail, our massive roads infrastructure to function properly during the whole transition. That means tax revenue, in addition to covering all of the colossal debt and expenses we already have from other sources, would also have to pay for maintaining all existing roads WHILE ALSO paying to build rail.
Try pitching that plan in an election. "I know most of you are having a hard time finding work, and those that have work are working longer hours for less pay. But I have a plan: we're going to tax you an extra $5,000 per year per person, and in 5 years the 30% of you that still own a home will be able to use trains to commute!"
It was, of course, Keynes who said 'in the long run we're all dead.' Keynsian economics does not work in the long term, as Britain discovered in the seventies. But it does work in the short term. Building big new infrastructure projects - the German Autobahnen, the Hoover Dam, or a new railway network - create vast numbers of jobs. Right now. When people need them. Of course the infrastructure has to be paid for, so you have to borrow - but guess what? Interest rates are at an all time low in a recession.
The deal is not 'pay more taxes now, when you don't have a job,' it's 'have a job now building infrastructure project X, and pay more taxes later to pay it off.'
Governments borrowing billions of dollars to prop up failed financial institutions made no sense whatever - not a single job was created in consequence. But governments borrowing billions of dollars to build infrastructure which will make tomorrow's economy more efficient, while keeping today's labour force in work, that does make sense.
I kind of wish that they'd have gone the extra mile and done a BG III instead of devolving into the pit of crap that is Neverwinter Nights and related games and expansions.
Without wishing to criticise Baldur's Gate, I think Neverwinter Nights and it's successors are among the best games ever. There's no accounting for taste, of course. There are certainly things wrong with NWN, but I think that's mainly the use of the D&D world - from that point of view, The Witcher, which is set in a much grittier and more realistic world, is better. But I'm really surprised that anyone into RPGs thinks NWN is 'crap'.
It makes far less sense if the two products aren't build using the same parts, of course, which is why the car analogy falls flat when talking about Google.
If you believe that the car industry analogy falls flat, you know nothing about the car market. I can go out today and buy a Ford Mondeo, or a Volvo V70, or a Saab 93, or a Jaguar XF - all competing directly against one another, all with significantly different engineering and tooling, all made by Ford. Google only supports two browsers (and only makes one). Ford has about six entirely different executive saloon cars.
But where would one draw the line between "causing distress" and "physically reprimanding"? A simple spanking, while not looked down upon by the court, causes a child quite a bit of distress, hence the crying et al involved.
'A simple spanking' will get you prison in Scotland, even if it is your child. On the whole I think this is a good thing.
Don't show off your ignorance too much. LISP has used CamelCase for at least thirty years. Admittedly neither Scheme nor Common LISP conventionally use it, but InterLISP certainly does.
We need some serious patent reform. Patents are good and necessary in general...
I seriously doubt this. The claim for patents is that they protect the 'useful arts' by offering inventors a limited-time monopoly on whatever they have invented - provided that the invention passes some test of non-obviousness and utility.
However, if you look back in history to periods in which some countries had patent systems and some did not - the United Kingdom and Germany in the nineteenth century, for example - it's clear that lack of a patent system did not in the least hold back inventors in Germany from inventing and developing new technologies. On the contrary. So the intellectual justification for having a patent system in the first place looks a bit thin.
I think we'd all - drug companies included - be better off if there were no such things as patents.
Most people play computer games for the action (and/or to socialize with each other), not for the storytelling. If they want a story, they will turn to a story-telling medium, such as film or books.
There are probably more people wanting to "write for video games" than there are people who want to play the games such people would write.
Then buy one of those automatic card shuffling machines.
Next, photocopy the cliche book and use the shuffling machine to introduce "originality" to your creations.
Seriously, WTF? What writing is there for games that isn't complete (literary, not computer-y) hackery? You're not exactly competing with Dickens. You're not even competing with Dick.
Is the wrong answer.
Yes, 'computer games' (I personally prefer 'interactive fiction', but that may be pretentious) is a young artform. Yes, we're still struggling to learn how to create compelling interactive narratives. But unless you have an ambition not merely to compete with Dickens and Shakespeare, but to equal them don't even bother trying. The market for games is hard enough to break into anyway - there's no market at all for badly written games.
Bioware has repeatedly had contests where they've asked the community to open up the NWN toolset, write some dialogue and send it to them. The proof is in the pudding.
CD Project Red (The Witcher) are doing the same thing, and my team has won two out of four stages of the current contest, come second in one stage, and ducked out of one; we're probably favourites to be overall winners. I have to admit I got involved in this competition to build up a modding team towards doing a commercial independent game, but I think that it's at present extremely difficult to break into even the indie games market, let alone the 'big' games market.
Also, writers are not the most sought-after talent. 3D modellers are probably that - but concept art is also important. So if you're good at storyboarding, work on your 2D art skills.
Then, find a game which you enjoy which makes it's content creation toolkit available to the community (Bioware, Bethesda, CD Projekt Red - there's a lot of buzz at present about the new Bioware toolkit which will come with Dragon Age), hang out in the forums, get a feel of which modding team has got its act most together, and talk to them.
And it should be noted that writing typical fiction or exposition is different from writing threaded dialogue in a game, hence that is why they ask people to submit basic mods made in their toolset.
This is absolutely true. Non-linear narratives which work for the reader/player/user/audience are very much harder to write well than linear narratives, and the more freedom you allow the player the harder it is to craft a satisfying narrative. This doesn't make it not worth doing - on the contrary, like the GPP, it is my ambition to produce a really excellent story-driven game.
words evolve in meaning and use, and you need to get used to it
One of the processes by which words evolve is hegemony. The *IAA want to influence what you believe about copyright infringement, want you to believe it is evil and worthy of extreme sanction, so they persuade you to call it a name which means a very serious crime. If you apply the word 'piracy' to copyright infringement, you are singing off their hymnsheet.
Which, of course, it copyright, so now you owe them...
just because you don't understand what objectivity is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. and just because people are inherently biased doesn't mean that we are incapable of being objective, or that everyone is equally biased. that's like saying that just because people aren't 100% rational all the time that logic doesn't exist, or that a creationist is as rational/irrational as an evolutionary biologist
You had me until you attempted to inject your non-objective opinion in there with the creationist verses evolution. First of all, Evolution does not disprove creation, it doesn't even speak to the same subjects. There are even people who want to claim Evolution it a tool of creation. Evolution does not speak to the key factors of creation like abiogenisis itself or even the beginning of time and the universe or the planets and so on that a;; scientific theory eventually throw's it's arms up and eventually say "we don't know", "it was always there", or a combination of both.
I think born-again Christians are ample proof of the non-existence of intelligent design: no intelligent designer could possibly design anything so completely impervious not merely to reason, but even to common sense.
However, enough of abuse, let's turn to reason...
Of course evolution doesn't disprove creation. Of course evolution and creation aren't even addressing the same issue: the theory of evolution addresses 'how', whereas theories of creation address 'why'. However, the theory of evolution is supported by a great deal of evidence. Theories about creation are backed by no evidence whatsoever.
Yes, JHYH sitting on his cloud could have decided that he wanted some obedient minions to worship him (reality check time, folks: can you imagine an immanent, eternal, omnicompetent being who is so psychologically insecure that (s)he needs worshippers?). Yes, the universe could have been sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure (thus replacing the Big Bang with the Big Blow). These things are possible. They are equally possible, and they are each equally possible with an uncountable infinite of other possibilities. But given that they are all equally probable and that they are uncountably infinite, the probability of any one of them being true is as near zero as makes no never mind.
The only rational answer to the questions of how life on Earth came to have the form it presently does is that evolution was the principal mechanism. The only rational answer to the questions of why life on Earth came to have the form it presently does is Mu.
Science, in the end, does not answer 'why' question. Of course it doesn't. The question is an artefact of a groundless assumption that there must be a reason. Is there a reason intelligent life evolved on Earth? Is there are reason that millions of innocent people die in natural disasters? If you are going to answer that there is a reason for the first, and that that reason is that JHWH willed it, how can you avoid the conclusion that JHWH must also have willed the second?
Hey, I love every single one of the books.
For me, there is nothing as sad as the end of a story.
That's definitely a reason for reading Jordan, then. Ten huge volumes (before I gave up) and no bloody character development at all! Excellent setting, shame about the (lack of) narrative progress.
At least now he's dead the story does end... in a way.
Would you like to comment on how well that's working? I've been thinking of getting a FreeRunner and putting Android on it, but I need it to actually work as a phone.
Isn't that the spyware bunch? I know I recently had to remove WildTangent software from my Dad's PC,and he has never played a PC game in his life. So all I can figure is he got zapped in a bundle or something,because WildTangent was running on his PC and slowing his PC and net connection down bad. Just the fact that Spybot detected them is enough for me to label them crapware,although someone here may know more about whether they are adware or spyware. I know I have been seeing it more and more on older folks PCs,and come to think of it they all had AT&T DSL. Does anyone know if this crap is being bundled with AT&T software?
According to Decrapifier it comes bundled with 70% of HP/Compaq PCs
What kind of phone call were you waiting on that you couldn't leave the phone in your car? Power tools + boats = phone stays in car, or (dry) sink in the boat.
I can remember dealing with a technical support call from a customer, going through some intricacies of a database, and then, noticing I was getting a little too close to a particular island, said 'hang on, got to tack', tacked the boat, and carried on the conversation.
'What are you doing?' asked my customer.
'Sailing', I said.
There was a long pause, and then we went back to talking about his database.
My phones come with me wherever I'm going. My iPAQ has an Otterbox which I do occasionally use when I'm doing really extreme things, but most of the time I don't bother with it. Cellphones are pretty robust.
People abuse the hell out of their cellphones. They drop them on the ground, set heavy objects on top of them, hell, people even throw them across the room in anger. How many computers have to put up with that type of abuse? I'm frankly amazed that it's only 1 in 20 iPhones.
Exactly. The only cell phone I've ever had fail got caught in the hinge mechanism of a car seat and crushed. My cell phones have been sat on, rained on, dropped in salt water, left out on sandy beaches, been in my back pockets in countless mountain bike falls and one spectacular road bike crash... cell phones are, on the whole, pretty spectacularly robust and reliable. At least, that's my experience.
There is, and you just quoted it. The best part of LISP is that there's no bloody syntax; everything is clean, regular and simple. Of course this isn't true of Common LISP, but Common LISP isn't really LISP at all.
I have to admit I took a look at Io this morning, and thought, 'oh, no, not another language with bloody stupid syntax.'
The funny thing is, those jokes about Emacs being slow date back to the 80s. These days, I find that Emacs is about the fastest app to start on a modern Linux distribution.
The rest of userland has gotten fatter and fatter, but Emacs has stayed about the same.
Since the story asks for favorite things about Emacs, I will just add: Gnus. The best email app bar none.
Back in the early nineties, I had an Acorn R140 with 4Mb of core; it ran RISC iX, which was basically BSD 4.2. It could just about run X11; and it could happily run a full Emacs development session (but not under X11). Pretty soon after that I got an R280, which had 8Mb of core; and that ran Emacs under X11 really nicely...
It's a long time since Emacs has really been slow, but the jokes have long memories.
Slashdot Mirror
Given a crash between two vehicles, you want to be in the heavier one. To a limited extent, it's even good to trade off quality for more mass.
You need to go back to school and learn physics. Given a crash between two vehicles, the one you want to be in is the one whose passenger cell deforms least. Given equal deformation of the passenger cell, the one you want to be in is the is the one which decelerates your body most smoothly.
Twenty years ago my ex-wife crashed her Citroen BX head on into a 40 ton truck at a closing speed of 60mph. After the accident, none of the windows of the Citroen were broken, and all the doors opened and closed properly. Nothing in the passenger cell had deformed at all. The fact that outside the passenger cell the whole of the front of the car had compressed down to about six inches is beside the point: it had done it's job and absorbed the impact. My ex-wife was shaken but unhurt.
I can see that. That wouldn't be a problem for me to accept. It's just that I also happen to see trucks as being much better built and ultimately safer to drive.
In that case you really don't know what you're talking about. SUVs have a higher probability of accident and a poorer survivability than modern European or Japanese small cars. They roll over much more easily. They have poorer road holding. And (unsurprisingly) they consistently perform worse in crash tests.
In order for the US to transition to rail, our massive roads infrastructure to function properly during the whole transition. That means tax revenue, in addition to covering all of the colossal debt and expenses we already have from other sources, would also have to pay for maintaining all existing roads WHILE ALSO paying to build rail.
Try pitching that plan in an election. "I know most of you are having a hard time finding work, and those that have work are working longer hours for less pay. But I have a plan: we're going to tax you an extra $5,000 per year per person, and in 5 years the 30% of you that still own a home will be able to use trains to commute!"
It was, of course, Keynes who said 'in the long run we're all dead.' Keynsian economics does not work in the long term, as Britain discovered in the seventies. But it does work in the short term. Building big new infrastructure projects - the German Autobahnen, the Hoover Dam, or a new railway network - create vast numbers of jobs. Right now. When people need them. Of course the infrastructure has to be paid for, so you have to borrow - but guess what? Interest rates are at an all time low in a recession.
The deal is not 'pay more taxes now, when you don't have a job,' it's 'have a job now building infrastructure project X, and pay more taxes later to pay it off.'
Governments borrowing billions of dollars to prop up failed financial institutions made no sense whatever - not a single job was created in consequence. But governments borrowing billions of dollars to build infrastructure which will make tomorrow's economy more efficient, while keeping today's labour force in work, that does make sense.
In the short term.
I kind of wish that they'd have gone the extra mile and done a BG III instead of devolving into the pit of crap that is Neverwinter Nights and related games and expansions.
Without wishing to criticise Baldur's Gate, I think Neverwinter Nights and it's successors are among the best games ever. There's no accounting for taste, of course. There are certainly things wrong with NWN, but I think that's mainly the use of the D&D world - from that point of view, The Witcher, which is set in a much grittier and more realistic world, is better. But I'm really surprised that anyone into RPGs thinks NWN is 'crap'.
Eve Online's currency is Icelandic Kronur? No wonder they're in trouble!
It makes far less sense if the two products aren't build using the same parts, of course, which is why the car analogy falls flat when talking about Google.
If you believe that the car industry analogy falls flat, you know nothing about the car market. I can go out today and buy a Ford Mondeo, or a Volvo V70, or a Saab 93, or a Jaguar XF - all competing directly against one another, all with significantly different engineering and tooling, all made by Ford. Google only supports two browsers (and only makes one). Ford has about six entirely different executive saloon cars.
does it affect all platforms since it's Java?
anyone know?
It's not Java, it's JavaScript - two very different languages linked only by a common marketing fuckwit.
But where would one draw the line between "causing distress" and "physically reprimanding"? A simple spanking, while not looked down upon by the court, causes a child quite a bit of distress, hence the crying et al involved.
'A simple spanking' will get you prison in Scotland, even if it is your child. On the whole I think this is a good thing.
Lisp doesn't use CamelCase.
Don't show off your ignorance too much. LISP has used CamelCase for at least thirty years. Admittedly neither Scheme nor Common LISP conventionally use it, but InterLISP certainly does.
We need some serious patent reform. Patents are good and necessary in general...
I seriously doubt this. The claim for patents is that they protect the 'useful arts' by offering inventors a limited-time monopoly on whatever they have invented - provided that the invention passes some test of non-obviousness and utility.
However, if you look back in history to periods in which some countries had patent systems and some did not - the United Kingdom and Germany in the nineteenth century, for example - it's clear that lack of a patent system did not in the least hold back inventors in Germany from inventing and developing new technologies. On the contrary. So the intellectual justification for having a patent system in the first place looks a bit thin.
I think we'd all - drug companies included - be better off if there were no such things as patents.
Most people play computer games for the action (and/or to socialize with each other), not for the storytelling. If they want a story, they will turn to a story-telling medium, such as film or books.
There are probably more people wanting to "write for video games" than there are people who want to play the games such people would write.
You could well be right!
Then buy a photocopier.
Then buy one of those automatic card shuffling machines.
Next, photocopy the cliche book and use the shuffling machine to introduce "originality" to your creations.
Seriously, WTF? What writing is there for games that isn't complete (literary, not computer-y) hackery? You're not exactly competing with Dickens. You're not even competing with Dick.
Is the wrong answer.
Yes, 'computer games' (I personally prefer 'interactive fiction', but that may be pretentious) is a young artform. Yes, we're still struggling to learn how to create compelling interactive narratives. But unless you have an ambition not merely to compete with Dickens and Shakespeare, but to equal them don't even bother trying. The market for games is hard enough to break into anyway - there's no market at all for badly written games.
Bioware has repeatedly had contests where they've asked the community to open up the NWN toolset, write some dialogue and send it to them. The proof is in the pudding.
CD Project Red (The Witcher) are doing the same thing, and my team has won two out of four stages of the current contest, come second in one stage, and ducked out of one; we're probably favourites to be overall winners. I have to admit I got involved in this competition to build up a modding team towards doing a commercial independent game, but I think that it's at present extremely difficult to break into even the indie games market, let alone the 'big' games market.
Also, writers are not the most sought-after talent. 3D modellers are probably that - but concept art is also important. So if you're good at storyboarding, work on your 2D art skills.
Then, find a game which you enjoy which makes it's content creation toolkit available to the community (Bioware, Bethesda, CD Projekt Red - there's a lot of buzz at present about the new Bioware toolkit which will come with Dragon Age), hang out in the forums, get a feel of which modding team has got its act most together, and talk to them.
And it should be noted that writing typical fiction or exposition is different from writing threaded dialogue in a game, hence that is why they ask people to submit basic mods made in their toolset.
This is absolutely true. Non-linear narratives which work for the reader/player/user/audience are very much harder to write well than linear narratives, and the more freedom you allow the player the harder it is to craft a satisfying narrative. This doesn't make it not worth doing - on the contrary, like the GPP, it is my ambition to produce a really excellent story-driven game.
words evolve in meaning and use, and you need to get used to it
One of the processes by which words evolve is hegemony. The *IAA want to influence what you believe about copyright infringement, want you to believe it is evil and worthy of extreme sanction, so they persuade you to call it a name which means a very serious crime. If you apply the word 'piracy' to copyright infringement, you are singing off their hymnsheet.
Which, of course, it copyright, so now you owe them...
You had me until you attempted to inject your non-objective opinion in there with the creationist verses evolution. First of all, Evolution does not disprove creation, it doesn't even speak to the same subjects. There are even people who want to claim Evolution it a tool of creation. Evolution does not speak to the key factors of creation like abiogenisis itself or even the beginning of time and the universe or the planets and so on that a;; scientific theory eventually throw's it's arms up and eventually say "we don't know", "it was always there", or a combination of both.
I think born-again Christians are ample proof of the non-existence of intelligent design: no intelligent designer could possibly design anything so completely impervious not merely to reason, but even to common sense.
However, enough of abuse, let's turn to reason...
Of course evolution doesn't disprove creation. Of course evolution and creation aren't even addressing the same issue: the theory of evolution addresses 'how', whereas theories of creation address 'why'. However, the theory of evolution is supported by a great deal of evidence. Theories about creation are backed by no evidence whatsoever.
Yes, JHYH sitting on his cloud could have decided that he wanted some obedient minions to worship him (reality check time, folks: can you imagine an immanent, eternal, omnicompetent being who is so psychologically insecure that (s)he needs worshippers?). Yes, the universe could have been sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure (thus replacing the Big Bang with the Big Blow). These things are possible. They are equally possible, and they are each equally possible with an uncountable infinite of other possibilities. But given that they are all equally probable and that they are uncountably infinite, the probability of any one of them being true is as near zero as makes no never mind.
The only rational answer to the questions of how life on Earth came to have the form it presently does is that evolution was the principal mechanism. The only rational answer to the questions of why life on Earth came to have the form it presently does is Mu.
Science, in the end, does not answer 'why' question. Of course it doesn't. The question is an artefact of a groundless assumption that there must be a reason. Is there a reason intelligent life evolved on Earth? Is there are reason that millions of innocent people die in natural disasters? If you are going to answer that there is a reason for the first, and that that reason is that JHWH willed it, how can you avoid the conclusion that JHWH must also have willed the second?
OK, I'd say not yet.
Compared to any of the openmoko distributions (There are lots) it looks like it's going to be the best option...
Thanks very much, that's extremely useful.
Hey, I love every single one of the books. For me, there is nothing as sad as the end of a story.
That's definitely a reason for reading Jordan, then. Ten huge volumes (before I gave up) and no bloody character development at all! Excellent setting, shame about the (lack of) narrative progress.
At least now he's dead the story does end... in a way.
I have it running on my freerunner now.
Would you like to comment on how well that's working? I've been thinking of getting a FreeRunner and putting Android on it, but I need it to actually work as a phone.
Isn't that the spyware bunch? I know I recently had to remove WildTangent software from my Dad's PC,and he has never played a PC game in his life. So all I can figure is he got zapped in a bundle or something,because WildTangent was running on his PC and slowing his PC and net connection down bad. Just the fact that Spybot detected them is enough for me to label them crapware,although someone here may know more about whether they are adware or spyware. I know I have been seeing it more and more on older folks PCs,and come to think of it they all had AT&T DSL. Does anyone know if this crap is being bundled with AT&T software?
According to Decrapifier it comes bundled with 70% of HP/Compaq PCs
What kind of phone call were you waiting on that you couldn't leave the phone in your car? Power tools + boats = phone stays in car, or (dry) sink in the boat.
I can remember dealing with a technical support call from a customer, going through some intricacies of a database, and then, noticing I was getting a little too close to a particular island, said 'hang on, got to tack', tacked the boat, and carried on the conversation.
'What are you doing?' asked my customer.
'Sailing', I said.
There was a long pause, and then we went back to talking about his database.
My phones come with me wherever I'm going. My iPAQ has an Otterbox which I do occasionally use when I'm doing really extreme things, but most of the time I don't bother with it. Cellphones are pretty robust.
People abuse the hell out of their cellphones. They drop them on the ground, set heavy objects on top of them, hell, people even throw them across the room in anger. How many computers have to put up with that type of abuse? I'm frankly amazed that it's only 1 in 20 iPhones.
Exactly. The only cell phone I've ever had fail got caught in the hinge mechanism of a car seat and crushed. My cell phones have been sat on, rained on, dropped in salt water, left out on sandy beaches, been in my back pockets in countless mountain bike falls and one spectacular road bike crash... cell phones are, on the whole, pretty spectacularly robust and reliable. At least, that's my experience.
(There's (a best) (part (of LISP)))?!?
There is, and you just quoted it. The best part of LISP is that there's no bloody syntax; everything is clean, regular and simple. Of course this isn't true of Common LISP, but Common LISP isn't really LISP at all.
I have to admit I took a look at Io this morning, and thought, 'oh, no, not another language with bloody stupid syntax.'
The funny thing is, those jokes about Emacs being slow date back to the 80s. These days, I find that Emacs is about the fastest app to start on a modern Linux distribution.
The rest of userland has gotten fatter and fatter, but Emacs has stayed about the same.
Since the story asks for favorite things about Emacs, I will just add: Gnus. The best email app bar none.
Back in the early nineties, I had an Acorn R140 with 4Mb of core; it ran RISC iX, which was basically BSD 4.2. It could just about run X11; and it could happily run a full Emacs development session (but not under X11). Pretty soon after that I got an R280, which had 8Mb of core; and that ran Emacs under X11 really nicely...
It's a long time since Emacs has really been slow, but the jokes have long memories.
EMACS: Eight Megabytes And Constant Swapping.
GNU Emacs: Generally Not Used Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists.
(I resemble that remark)
Oh, and, of course, ESC-X doctor - what use is a text editor if it can't psychoanalise you?
Of course, often people who are exposed to fatal risk as children also don't grow into a fully adult human being...
Well, as they say, duh. No, of course not. But at least they were given the chance. You cannot succeed if there is no risk of failure.