You're spouting off generalities as if they were always good advice, and making assumptions about things you don't know about. Children have to be allowed to make mistakes, or they're not going to learn. Children also should be allowed to fit into their social circle. Internet forums are physically a lot safer than physical ones.
And you have not addressed the question of talking to your kids: if one of your kids brings a problem to you, and you make a decision the kid doesn't like without understanding the situation first, your kids are going to be slower to bring problems to you.
Apple II was unique in the sense that it could drive a CRT directly. Otherwise it was just another computer running BASIC
No, other, later, computers were "just another computer running BASIC". Apple put out (by a matter of months) the first appliance-type home computer.
Macintosh was admittedly copied from the Xerox Alto
UI elements were copied. The GUI was new. The UI for the iPod was novel. I'm not as familiar with smartphones, so I can't talk about the UI. What tablets predated the iPad?
While Apple has done hardware invention, their strong spot has been inventing good UIs.
Since you obviously don't understand the problem (for example, you don't have a Facebook account), why do you insist on your own solution? How are you supposed to talk honestly with your kids if you're going to arbitrarily make decisions for them?
Look, it took me about fifty years to learn to ignore people who said bad things about me. I may be slow in that direction, but there's no way I'm blaming a kid for not having learned that yet.
but do understand the importance of an objective, unbiased press.
It would also be important to have unicorns and dragons. They're about equally possible. I've seen better evidence of psychic powers than an objective, unbiased press. Reporting news isn't a matter of listing every single fact in existence. Reporters are sent out because editors think there will be a good story, and there's no objective criteria for that. Then the story gets written, with the reporter putting the facts into some sort of comprehensible story, and the editors deciding which stories to cut short and where to put them. No human is unbiased.
Back not so long ago, there were three news networks and a handful of "newspapers of record" that served as almost the sole authoritative source of information for most people.
You say that like it's a good thing. We had a consensus social reality, and no good way to check up on it. Do you think it newsworthy that the President has sex with people with strong mob connections? It wasn't in the early 1960s for those newspapers, magazines, and networks. I've been behind the scenes on a very few things covered by the mainstream media, and the best I can say for them is that they usually didn't get actual facts wrong.
As far as I can tell, for much of the campaign Snopes.com was debunking lots of stories about both candidates.
We don't know that the accusations of rape were false. We know they're not proven.
There was also a lot of lies about Clinton. One particularly popular one was that anyone else who did what she did with classified material would have been in prison. There's still a lot of people who haven't looked at comparable cases who believe that one.
If you read Federalist Paper 68, you'll find that Publius said the Electoral College was very much to make sure that someone like Trump would not be elected.
Or reporting that Clockmed Achmed had invented a clock and the school was racist, and not that the school was legally required to report him to the police for the felony he committed by making a hoax bomb or else they could be charged with misprision.
If that modified clock had looked like it could have been a bomb, the teacher who confiscated it should be fired, since she kept her class in the same room with something that might be a bomb. If it didn't, how was it a hoax bomb? The kid never claimed it was a bomb. It was obviously not a bomb. I'd think that it would take either a claim or convincing appearance to make a hoax.
Or reporting that transgender rights are being violated by making them use the correct bathrooms or referring to them by their real names or with the correct pronouns.
The bathroom thing is partly a matter of safety. If someone who looks like a woman enters a men's room in many places, she's putting herself in danger. If someone who looks like a man enters the women's room, there's likely to be a panic. If someone who looks like they belong in that room comes in and enters a stall to do their business, no problem.
As far as using a name given at birth rather than one's preferred or legal name, that isn't a violation of rights. It's just plain rude. As far as the pronoun goes, what do you get by using the former pronoun, other than a sense of smugness? I think it polite to refer to people as they want to be referred to.
Actually, the Nazis weren't around when the "stab-in-the-back" stories started circulating. The German Army simply could not admit defeat, it would appear, and started lying their fool heads off to save what they thought of as their honor.
Trump's fraud trial for Trump University comes up soon, and from what I've seen he's likely to be convicted. He's been accused of a lot more things, including child rape. Why is it that accusations against Clinton were a death blow, but not accusations against Trump?
Some years ago, I had a friend who worked for Microsoft on Mac software. He said that, after every time top management publicly blasted the Mac, they'd send someone over to his area to say "Don't worry, guys, that's just PR. You make lots of money for us, and we like money."
Clinton didn't lose by much. She got the popular vote, and very small changes in a few states would have given her the election.
She had a clear lead in the polls until Comey interfered with the election. Given the closeness, and where the polls went after that, I'd say that Comey cost her the election by doing something of really questionable legality against DoJ policy.
The information I've been seeing about Trump supporters getting aggressive and violent is more credible than the reverse. Got any sources for large-scale anti-Trump violence?
The safety pin thing is intended to stop harassment and assaults, which I have reasonably credible evidence is happening. It's intended to make people feel safer. Are you in favor of targeting innocents for personal attack?
Impeachment is not so much a legal as a partisan action, and the Constitution is really vague on the High Crimes and Misdemeanors thing. I don't see anything about the crimes having been committed during the term.
Trump isn't much of a Republican. He ran on the Republican ticket, but his person and policies are not what the Republicans want. It's entirely possible that the Republicans would want him removed from office in favor of Pence. The House could impeach easily, but the Senate needs a 2/3 vote to convict, and that could be much more difficult.
Am I angry at Clinton for going along with several other high officials in allowing Russia to make a deal, in line with the policy towards Russia at the time? That doesn't seem to make sense, and in any case it wasn't interfering directly with US democracy.
Am I angry with Obama for interfering with government in Ukraine? I don't really know what went on, and won't for years. The waters are much to muddied for that. I do think we should interfere less with other countries' governments, if that's what you mean. However, there is a difference between my government meddling in other countries' democratic processes, which I'm against, and other governments meddling im my country's democratic processes, which I'm more against. A Ukrainian traitor isn't really my problem. A US traitor is.
Putin's not going to physically attack any NATO country (Ukraine is not in NATO). . Not unless he has plausible deniability, anyway. He's likely to do other hostile things.
I've had friends that weren't particularly honest. I liked them anyway, because of who they are.
Now, let's consider who Trump is. He's a flamboyant con man, a bully, and someone who uses unethical business practices. He stiffs small contractors and tells them to sue if they don't like it. He does things on the basis of what would cost him less.
Now, let's consider the guy in a small town in Missouri who used to do a hard day's work for a reasonable paycheck until the big factory closed down, and who is really struggling and insecure now. Knowing what Trump has done, why did that guy think Trump might make things better?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks - bookmarked that page for use in later arguments.
My son seems to have turned out well, thank you.
You're spouting off generalities as if they were always good advice, and making assumptions about things you don't know about. Children have to be allowed to make mistakes, or they're not going to learn. Children also should be allowed to fit into their social circle. Internet forums are physically a lot safer than physical ones.
And you have not addressed the question of talking to your kids: if one of your kids brings a problem to you, and you make a decision the kid doesn't like without understanding the situation first, your kids are going to be slower to bring problems to you.
No, other, later, computers were "just another computer running BASIC". Apple put out (by a matter of months) the first appliance-type home computer.
UI elements were copied. The GUI was new. The UI for the iPod was novel. I'm not as familiar with smartphones, so I can't talk about the UI. What tablets predated the iPad?
While Apple has done hardware invention, their strong spot has been inventing good UIs.
Maybe the NHTSA has the answer.
The change from blaming everything on Clinton to blaming everything on Obama seemed to happen in December 2012.
Since you obviously don't understand the problem (for example, you don't have a Facebook account), why do you insist on your own solution? How are you supposed to talk honestly with your kids if you're going to arbitrarily make decisions for them?
Look, it took me about fifty years to learn to ignore people who said bad things about me. I may be slow in that direction, but there's no way I'm blaming a kid for not having learned that yet.
Suppose you have a problem, and use violent regular expressions....
Some bullies can be dealt with without violence.
Really? I haven't found evidence of significant liberal bias. Are you sure your view of reality doesn't need adjustment?
It would also be important to have unicorns and dragons. They're about equally possible. I've seen better evidence of psychic powers than an objective, unbiased press. Reporting news isn't a matter of listing every single fact in existence. Reporters are sent out because editors think there will be a good story, and there's no objective criteria for that. Then the story gets written, with the reporter putting the facts into some sort of comprehensible story, and the editors deciding which stories to cut short and where to put them. No human is unbiased.
You say that like it's a good thing. We had a consensus social reality, and no good way to check up on it. Do you think it newsworthy that the President has sex with people with strong mob connections? It wasn't in the early 1960s for those newspapers, magazines, and networks. I've been behind the scenes on a very few things covered by the mainstream media, and the best I can say for them is that they usually didn't get actual facts wrong.
As far as I can tell, for much of the campaign Snopes.com was debunking lots of stories about both candidates.
We don't know that the accusations of rape were false. We know they're not proven.
There was also a lot of lies about Clinton. One particularly popular one was that anyone else who did what she did with classified material would have been in prison. There's still a lot of people who haven't looked at comparable cases who believe that one.
No, it didn't. Read Federalist Paper 68. One of the main purposes of the Electoral College was to prevent anyone like Trump from becoming President.
If you read Federalist Paper 68, you'll find that Publius said the Electoral College was very much to make sure that someone like Trump would not be elected.
If that modified clock had looked like it could have been a bomb, the teacher who confiscated it should be fired, since she kept her class in the same room with something that might be a bomb. If it didn't, how was it a hoax bomb? The kid never claimed it was a bomb. It was obviously not a bomb. I'd think that it would take either a claim or convincing appearance to make a hoax.
The bathroom thing is partly a matter of safety. If someone who looks like a woman enters a men's room in many places, she's putting herself in danger. If someone who looks like a man enters the women's room, there's likely to be a panic. If someone who looks like they belong in that room comes in and enters a stall to do their business, no problem.
As far as using a name given at birth rather than one's preferred or legal name, that isn't a violation of rights. It's just plain rude. As far as the pronoun goes, what do you get by using the former pronoun, other than a sense of smugness? I think it polite to refer to people as they want to be referred to.
Actually, the Nazis weren't around when the "stab-in-the-back" stories started circulating. The German Army simply could not admit defeat, it would appear, and started lying their fool heads off to save what they thought of as their honor.
Trump's fraud trial for Trump University comes up soon, and from what I've seen he's likely to be convicted. He's been accused of a lot more things, including child rape. Why is it that accusations against Clinton were a death blow, but not accusations against Trump?
Islam is a religion. There is a political movement that is largely based on interpretations of Islam. These are two different, but related, things.
Some years ago, I had a friend who worked for Microsoft on Mac software. He said that, after every time top management publicly blasted the Mac, they'd send someone over to his area to say "Don't worry, guys, that's just PR. You make lots of money for us, and we like money."
I spent the extra $100 to get Windows 10 Pro for my home laptop. That gives me the ability to delay, but not prevent, WIndows updates.
Clinton didn't lose by much. She got the popular vote, and very small changes in a few states would have given her the election.
She had a clear lead in the polls until Comey interfered with the election. Given the closeness, and where the polls went after that, I'd say that Comey cost her the election by doing something of really questionable legality against DoJ policy.
The information I've been seeing about Trump supporters getting aggressive and violent is more credible than the reverse. Got any sources for large-scale anti-Trump violence?
The safety pin thing is intended to stop harassment and assaults, which I have reasonably credible evidence is happening. It's intended to make people feel safer. Are you in favor of targeting innocents for personal attack?
Impeachment is not so much a legal as a partisan action, and the Constitution is really vague on the High Crimes and Misdemeanors thing. I don't see anything about the crimes having been committed during the term.
Trump isn't much of a Republican. He ran on the Republican ticket, but his person and policies are not what the Republicans want. It's entirely possible that the Republicans would want him removed from office in favor of Pence. The House could impeach easily, but the Senate needs a 2/3 vote to convict, and that could be much more difficult.
Am I angry at Clinton for going along with several other high officials in allowing Russia to make a deal, in line with the policy towards Russia at the time? That doesn't seem to make sense, and in any case it wasn't interfering directly with US democracy.
Am I angry with Obama for interfering with government in Ukraine? I don't really know what went on, and won't for years. The waters are much to muddied for that. I do think we should interfere less with other countries' governments, if that's what you mean. However, there is a difference between my government meddling in other countries' democratic processes, which I'm against, and other governments meddling im my country's democratic processes, which I'm more against. A Ukrainian traitor isn't really my problem. A US traitor is.
Putin's not going to physically attack any NATO country (Ukraine is not in NATO). . Not unless he has plausible deniability, anyway. He's likely to do other hostile things.
I've had friends that weren't particularly honest. I liked them anyway, because of who they are.
Now, let's consider who Trump is. He's a flamboyant con man, a bully, and someone who uses unethical business practices. He stiffs small contractors and tells them to sue if they don't like it. He does things on the basis of what would cost him less.
Now, let's consider the guy in a small town in Missouri who used to do a hard day's work for a reasonable paycheck until the big factory closed down, and who is really struggling and insecure now. Knowing what Trump has done, why did that guy think Trump might make things better?
Could somebody explain this to me? I am completely failing to understand this.