Yes. It is not my preferred method. It's not that I think that it will corrupt every single kid and turn them into a monster. I, personally, just think that it's barbaric and idiotic. Personally, I'd physically retaliate against someone if they tried to employ such methods against me. People are within their right to remove property from my possession if it belongs to them, however.
Okay. I guess I read more into your original comment than you put there, and mistook your adamant resolve for a crusade. You've shown, I think, that you're prepared to discipline a child in some way that is effective, which is what matters. Far too many parents today are not. I'm glad to see that although you think it is onerous, you understand that it's also not the end of the world.
Taking away a child's toys for no good reason is just as abusive psychologically
Except that not letting them use things that you bought sends a different message. In other words, you can take away privileges provided that you are responsible for them. Violence becomes less appealing if it is not used as a method of control by trusted adults, I would think.
Fair enough. We obviously disagree about that last sentence, but I see where you're coming from otherwise. I'm interested in what you think about this scenario: is it in your opinion permissible to send a child to bed without or with an abridged supper? I'm not talking about starving anyone, but say your child won't eat the prepared (nutritious) food, saying he wants cookies instead. What do you deem the appropriate action in this case? What if he wants something nutritious, just not what you've already cooked? I ask because I'm wondering if it's okay in your mind to forego the time sacrifice involved in cooking more food in a case where the only thing standing between the child and a good meal is his own preference, and because while the food is something you provide it is also to some degree not a privilege but a necessity--although again I am not talking about starving anyone. Is this a case that requires patience on your part or is it that the child needs to learn that he won't always get exactly what he wants but he will get what he needs from you, or is it some third option I haven't thought of?
means a prior relationship
Why?
Because if you are not someone who they already know and respect as an authority figure of some sort, there is no lesson to be learned or discipline to be had. It's akin to penetration testing: if a random joe comes in and steals your data, you're in a bad situation and your response should be to retaliate and defend yourself however possible. If instead the guy who steals your data is someone you've hired to improve your security and someone whom you trust to be doing it for your well-being, then you've learned about some areas in which you have weaknesses. Now, you generally don't get to hire your authority figures (which is why abuse of any kind is so terrible), but the fact that good ones are looking out for your best interests, and that you understand that at some level, makes the whole ordeal into something more benign than it would otherwise be. Does that make sense to you, even if you disagree with the method?
the action is not disciplinary but vindictive.
What if, like a parent, they "meant well"? Why is it automatically vindictive?
I hope the above illustrates why a relationship is important. You are correct that it might not necessarily be vindictive. Even if a party means well, without the subject realizing he means well no good will likely come of it, and the best and maybe only way to ensure that when considering corporal punishment (as well as other kinds) is to have an existing good relationship. When it is not an authority figure but two equal friends, there is an element of both vin
This is different from any other punishment/reward system...how?
No logical argument is necessary. This is more true here than with other punishments.
It really isn't. You need no logical argument to take away things the kid enjoys, either.
But wouldn't it likely be more frequently if their parent uses and teaches them that it is acceptable (even if that wasn't that intention)?
I don't know. I've never seen that reported. Have you?
Can you give an example or two, then?
They could kick them out of the building (if the kid is in a school). The school doesn't need to punish them at all.
I think I agree with you here, as long as the parents are notified. They should be responsible for any discipline. I don't condemn its use in schools in the past, but social structures have changed.
1) Take away things the kid enjoys, provided you own them in the first place. 2) Don't do anything good for them in the future that you normally would. Explain these to them, of course.
So this too takes place in a disciplinary framework--good. The difference is that I have an extra level of punishment above (1). Perhaps I didn't make it clear that I don't think spanking is the ONLY method of punishment that should be used. (2) doesn't seem very useful. Kids live in the moment and have only a dim concept of delayed punishment. "I'm turning the car around and we're going home now" is about the only time this would make sense in my opinion.
You are working from the premise that spanking is wrong, evil, barbaric.
Because I think that it is, not that it is a universal fact (as in, that is my opinion).
Okay. I'm trying to understand why. So far you've said that its barbaric, which is begging the question, and because it can be misused, which any form of discipline can. I mean, if it's really just because you don't like the idea of it, just say as much and I'll leave you alone. I only jumped in because you mischaracterized from the start the fact that the action is disciplinary and not vindictive.
You have yet to give me any good reason to believe that my method, which works in a hundredth of the time, is less effective or more harmful than the lengthy alternative.
And what of children that adopt this sort of violent behavior because their parents utilize it? What of the ones that even go so far as to use it against their parents or others?
I have not met any people whose parents used physical discipline that later adopted violent behavior towards their parents or anyone else. I have heard of and encountered people whose parents were physically abusive that did turn out violent. There is a vast difference, and I am not arguing in the defense of physical abuse. Again, the disciplinary framework is important. Taking away a child's toys for no good reason is just as abusive psychologically, and in fact the child will probably exhibit similar deviant behavior to a physically abused child.
You shouldn't be hitting random adults or random children.
Why not? Whether they're random or not, if you hit them in the right circumstances and explain it to them, they will understand, correct?
"The right circumstances," for the nth time, means a prior relationship in which you are responsible for their development. Unless you somehow have a prior relationship with a stranger, the action is not disciplinary but vindictive.
Oh, I agree completely! Placebo is another one of those things (like suggestion) that has been labeled and then brushed aside because it is a difficult problem to tackle. Its position in science is interesting because it is universally acknowledged to exist, but the fact that it represents a huge gap in our knowledge of how our minds and bodies interact is just as universally ignored.
Its greatest efficacy is in pain management, which is subjective and can be hard to test, but it also has applications in things like allergic reactions that are unexplained (and probably unexplainable) by prevailing theories. Nobody's looking at the mechanism by which someone can cause a localized allergic reaction in their left forearm and not their right when the only difference between the two substances that touched them is that they were told one is an allergen. This has been shown to work equally well when an inert substance is used and when an allergenic substance is used. The really interesting thing about this is that unlike pain management, there is nothing anywhere in the brain or nervous system to regulate histamine response--it is a local phenomenon.
The tricky part in experimenting with placebo is to find the right subjects, as not all people are equally susceptible to placebo effects. As I wrote above, the mistake being made is to take a random sample of people when what we ought to be doing is to find individuals who show drastic effects--this would make for a more reliable means of studying the phenomenon. (Of course this should not be done for medicinal trials because the goals are completely different.) Control groups, people with an average amount of susceptibility, would be necessary too, but it ought to be an explicit variable in the experiment.
Anecdotally, it seems to me that more and more people I talk to in life and online are getting interested in the placebo effect, so maybe within the next decade we'll see some good research coming out.
My question to you is this: what if reliably triggering the placebo effect takes the form of hypnosis or visualization, basically having someone else or yourself deeply convince you that you have no pain or warts or allergies or whatever? It seems pretty clear even at this early stage that it's a case of "mind over matter," that is, the patient must believe that the desired effects will occur, and there are a whole lot of factors involved: how much the patient trusts the doctor, the diagnosis, the pill...none of which can be relied upon. Would you be willing to undergo hypnosis, or put effort into meditation-like visualization techniques? I guess what I mean is, how do you reconcile the way in which the placebo effect almost conclusively has to work with an apparent skepticism about the mind's capabilities to affect (at the very least) its body?
when used appropriately and early enough creates very useful psychological conditioning.
And an excellent method to brainwash people.
This is different from any other punishment/reward system...how? What's your proposal? To sit your four-year-old down and rationally explain to her that while it is her toy, Sally was playing with it at the time and she can't throw a fit and try to grab it back, because it's not nice and because Sally is also a living human being who deserves respect? Good luck with that.
Another problem is that parents have no real restrictions on what they can do (aside from not punishing them too harshly). Don't believe in god? Time for a spanking! You did something that I don't like? Time for violence! Sure, other punishments could be used in their place, but, as you said, physical violence is an effective method at conditioning, even if you don't have an actual logical argument.
You willfully ignored most of the context of what I wrote. Corporal punishment is to be used sparingly and as a deterrent. With the threat in place, the actual use is infrequent. I described a framework within which it should be used, and you can read it above. If you can't comprehend the difference between willy-nilly beatings for something the parent doesn't like and an actual system of punishing bad behavior that has the child's best interest at heart, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss this at all. I suppose it's always wrong for a man to cut a little boy too--even when the man is a doctor about to perform a life-saving surgery? Circumstances matter.
Kids will likely realize this and begin employing violence themselves. And, really, why shouldn't they?
That tends to happen on its own. It's amazing how easily it is curbed with a spanking, along with--since apparently I have to spell it out for you--the warning that if he does it again he'll get another spanking. If the child understands only that, it is enough for now. If the child asks why it's okay for you to hit him but not for him to hit other people, then he's ready to start learning about how the situations differ, and he probably won't need corporal punishment much longer.
you end up with a bunch of brats who know that the adults around them are relatively powerless to stop them from doing anything but criminal acts.
Powerless? Not at all.
Can you give an example or two, then? Notice that I have been furnishing every point I make with something to support it, not simply making unfounded statements.
patience
If you don't have time and/or patience, you should not have children.
Again, you completely ignore the context, made blatantly obvious by pulling out a single word. You are working from the premise that spanking is wrong, evil, barbaric. Nowhere do you even mention the only salient point you could actually argue, that it is bad for the child, so I had to do it for you. I am working from the premise that spanking is not bad for the child. You have yet to give me any good reason to believe that my method, which works in a hundredth of the time, is less effective or more harmful than the lengthy alternative. So no, I don't have the patience to needlessly waste time when I have a solution that will result in all parties getting back to enjoying their lives sooner. The unwarranted personal attack also does not help your case. For such an "idiotic and barbaric" person as I must be for supporting spankings, you're the real asshole here.
And corporal punishment does work on adults--you've never had or heard of a confrontation with a friend over something that's basically resolved after a brief scuffle? The trick, just like with children, is that there has to be a more-than-superficial relationship, otherwise it is indeed senseless violence and
I think that the extreme pacifism displayed by many adults today is what is idiotic. I grew up in a loving household, but I was spanked on occasion when I did something particularly bad. Other times I was made to stand in the corner in a "time out" (no sitting on a comfy couch for me; it was stand in the corner and face the wall), and I did it because I knew I'd get The Dreaded Wooden Spoon if I defied my punishment. But without those first few times actually getting hit the threat would have been empty. I should also note that I was in most cases warned not to do something then did it anyway before any sort of punishment was given. The goal, after all, is to have the kid obey you, not to hurt the kid.
And that's the thing. "Physical force against someone who poses no physical threat" when used appropriately and early enough creates very useful psychological conditioning. It doesn't take long before the threat of force is enough to deter bad behavior most of the time, so force need be used only rarely. And the thing to keep in mind is that the whole situation is temporary. That kind of punishment is only needed when you are trying to curb bad behavior that the kid probably knows is bad but doesn't really understand why, and you have no other leverage on him--too young to be seeing friends often, so grounding won't work; no allowance; etc. Of course it can be misused, and I don't know how much I'd trust the modern school system to properly administer it. There is a component of judgment which requires that you know the kid's temperament that isn't very prevalent in schools; in fact it's too often missing in homes.
Without something like corporal punishment to keep a kid in line before he has the capacity to understand why, you end up with a bunch of brats who know that the adults around them are relatively powerless to stop them from doing anything but criminal acts. That's going to make for a much more barbaric society than a few young'uns with red bottoms, in my opinion. Now, I have seen some parents do the time-out thing and when the kid tries to leave, pick him back up and put him back down in the chair. If you have the patience to hover for what might turn into three hours of doing that with a screaming kid, that's your prerogative--though please, please, PLEASE do not do it anywhere where innocent bystanders are subject to it. I think a few stinging whacks get the point across in a hundredth of the time with no ill effects, so that's what I'll be doing when I have kids.
(And corporal punishment does work on adults--you've never had or heard of a confrontation with a friend over something that's basically resolved after a brief scuffle? The trick, just like with children, is that there has to be a more-than-superficial relationship, otherwise it is indeed senseless violence and counterproductive.)
If you're interested in a scientific framework that actually incorporates the thousands of examples of supernormal phenomena (including things like telepathy, near death and out-of-body experiences, genius and creativity, veridical apparitions and the like), I suggest taking a look at the book Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. A fellow slashdotter turned me on to the book and I've been impressed by the scientific way in which they have both presented and synthesized the evidence for the existence of self apart from brain activity. If you were being facetious, ignore the rest of this post because it's pretty much a book review.
The gist of the presented theory as I understand it is a kind of dualism--a dirty word, I know--that unlike classical dualism posits the material and non-material realms as being very intertwined. It has its roots in the classical psychological theories of Myers, James and others, and I've found it to be very intriguing so far (I'm about 2/3 of the way through). I have read other books on the subject but most of them (even the ones I like) suffer from untrustworthy authors pushing some kind of new-age agenda. These authors, in contrast, are building their case on sound reasoning and evaluation of evidence that tends to be summarily dismissed from mainstream discourse simply because it doesn't fit the prevailing theory. I speak here of a large volume evidence gathered by practicing psychologists, not anecdotes from your stoned uncle. In fact, nearly the last hundred pages of the book (!) are an appendix of case studies containing supporting evidence. Cases taken in isolation are merely interesting (and the authors are quick to point out any weaknesses found in them), but when taken en masse are quite compelling. What the authors are asking for is not acceptance of their theory; they are instead asking for the scientific community to really consider the existing body of evidence and to do further experiments based on it. Much like the creator of the theory, they recognize that further study is sorely needed before anything conclusive can be drawn. Those experiments will either lend weight to their theory or will point in a different direction--either way, we've expanded our scientific knowledge.
A slightly more detailed description of Myers' theory (upon which this book builds) is that consciousness (and the brain) acts as a filter, adapted by evolution for survival in the physical world. The authors use the analogy of the electromagnetic spectrum: if the whole range of mind is the entire spectrum, then everyday consciousness represents the visual portion. At the "infrared" boundary we have things like control of the heartbeat, allergies, body temperature, and other low-level body operations that can with practice be influenced by the mind, sometimes spectacularly. At the "ultraviolet" end lie things like genius, creativity, and the whole range of "paranormal" phenomena. (This metaphor has interesting ties to Hindu mysticism that AFAIK are not mentioned by the authors.) The reason we don't see a lot of it is because it has not been useful from an evolutionary perspective. Some psychological disorders such as Multiple Personality Disorder are according to this theory pathological manifestations of things which lie (metaphorically again) towards the high end of the spectrum.
The use of hypnosis is responsible for accessing a lot of this stuff, and that it is routinely brushed aside as "merely suggestion" is a great failing of contemporary psychologists. Saying that an allergy can be removed or triggered by suggestion leads one to believe that the mechanism by which local skin cells can be agitated or inhibited by thought or will is both understood and not worth investigating further. Hypnosis may very well be the best investigative tool we have for getting at the heart of the mind-body problem. And they specifically warn against usi
You don't need additional regulation to enforce contract law. This case would probably be covered under misrepresentation (I am not a contract lawyer).
"Half the government being influenced if not run by these companies" is indeed a huge problem here. Do you think that regulatory agencies would be composed entirely of people from the other half of the government? Historical and contemporary developments show quite the opposite.
An important difference is that when it was brought to light that Google and Apple were tracking these things, there were lawsuits filed and a general uproar that is prompting changes (at least in Apple's case). The FBI's response is instead going to be "tough titties." Not to mention that the corporate products are optional and not backed up by the threat of force.
You are correct. The term "schizophrenia" means "split mind," and it is probably that misnomer that causes the confusion.
Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) or Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), which both refer to the same thing, is in every case I am aware of caused by a severely traumatic experience. It is a completely different phenomenon and an utterly fascinating one from both a psychological and physiological perspective. There are changes in the body that are very difficult to explain with conventional theories of how mind affects body--from mildly interesting ones like differing allergies to the startling changes in visual acuity as seen here.
Your thinking is too centralized. If the tech gets cheap enough, I think you'll start to see a lot more private homes installing solar panels. Batteries aren't an issue because they'll still be on the grid--solar is primarily supplemental and will be for some time. If the panel owner ends up generating more electricity than he is using during the day, in many (most?) places the electric company pays him for it.
The system is in place. The trick is that the public has to realize that voting is one of the least important political actions. Far more important is to be in frequent communication with your representatives' offices and convincing others to do the same. It takes a decent chunk of people making a lot of noise to convince a politician that he'll lose the next election by passing a particular measure. That requires paying consistent attention to what's happening in the off-season, and it requires a much larger time investment than voting once a year or so.
The politicians are certainly shirking their responsibilities to the public by ignoring what it wants until they are beaten over the head with it. The public is equally guilty of shirking its head-beating duties.
According to one of the third party companies with a dev rig, the new motion controllers are better than PS3 Move, which is by all accounts better than Motion Plus.
I'm pretty interested in the form factor of the controllers. They're rumored to have HD screens in them, so does that mean Nintendo is moving away from the wand format it just established? Will they return to a two-handed grip only with motion--like Sixaxis--or do they have a new Wonka-esque contraption in the works?
If it's backwards-compatible and they create a real multiplayer environment and marketplace for more indie (read: not FPS) games like those found on XBLA, which has also been hinted at, it would be very compelling as a Wii owner. WiiWare has some good stuff but misses out on a lot because networked multiplayer is rightfully in.
With HDTV support and current-gen power under the hood all but confirmed, this thing could be a contender. Nintendo will likely have a year or two to show hardcore gamers if they're serious before MS and Sony can up the ante with shinier hardware, and I think we're near the point where diminishing returns start to show in that department--assuming game publishers are even willing to increase their production costs threefold to model better raindrop splashes or what have you.
That doesn't make sense. One of the few things that every living species has in common is that it tries to take as much energy as there is available. If these plants evolved in a place with an abundance of energy from an Earth-centric perspective, why would they evolve in a way that doesn't make use of it?
(One wonders why Earthlike plant life would evolve at all, given the drastic differences that must be introduced by having two suns.)
when there is a fall in prices generally/across the board (i.e. the definition of deflation) then consumers will tend to stop spending.
Do you have a source for this? Facts, not theory, please.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it. I thought the reason we want to keep inflation down is to ensure people have enough purchasing power that they continue to spend. roman_mir gave examples of deflation (the increase of value of a currency) spurring growth in 19C and 20C United States. I have heard from many sources that deflation is a bad thing, but I haven't heard it backed up with any real-world cases.
Until negative interest rates are invented, no one wants to borrow because the value of your debt increases even though you do absolutely nothing. With consumers minimising consumption (and increasing savings) you have an ever increasing savings/investment imbalance in the economy (excessive savings, and no investment).
Debt, then, is the real source of the problem. It is viewed as a way of life and a positive thing to have. This is also ridiculous if you give it any thought, and the meme only entered and conquered the culture over the past sixty years. Here's a hint: even a steadily inflating currency isn't going to outrun the interest generated by the debt. If more people had practiced saving money and living within their means, there are a number of past and future crises that would have been averted. If more people start to eliminate their debts and practice sound money management, "the economy" may or may not remain sluggish but each individual will be much better off.
It makes more sense to me to strengthen the economy from a position of strength, not one of increasing weakness through further debt.
I play it. For me, building things is one of the less interesting aspects. The part I'm most interested in is exploration. The world generator is very good at making interesting places to explore, especially underground. Almost without fail after half an hour of cave exploration I stumble upon huge sets of catacombs full of water and lava flows and dangerous groups of monsters (often with me at a disadvantage due to terrain). I love trying to light up cave systems and getting quite lost despite my best efforts to mark the way out, then eventually stumbling upon a previously explored section or finding a new exit.
I like exploring caves in real life, too, which is probably why I get so much enjoyment out of it. I only fire up the game once every few weeks, but when I do I usually lose 5-6 hours to it over the course of a day or two. It's certainly held my interest enough that I've gotten more than my money's worth with it, and since I'll be getting all future updates for free it was quite the bargain.
Emacs and Vi are certainly at least as different as Eclipse and Visual Studio. There is plenty of room on the command line for appreciably different paradigms and conventions.
The advantage of the GUI is that it can potentially make actions both more implicit and more immediate. For an example of immediacy, to copy a file from one place to another on the command line you must navigate to the source file and then execute the copy command which requires a degree of planning in that you must know the destination. In a GUI you must navigate to the file, but then you are free to copy it to the clipboard without knowing where your destination is yet. In another case, you may have just dumped a month's worth of photos from your camera (or a bunch of CDs) onto your computer and would like to organize them, specifically by putting all photos taken of hot chicks in a "hot chicks" folder (or favorite songs into a "favorite songs" folder). Tasks like these lend themselves to a GUI because it's not really a batch process--a human decision is required for each element (and GUIs have thumbnails!). In this case using the mouse to select files in a list is bound to be faster than typing them out into a move command, even with auto-complete. There is an immediacy to spotting a file and selecting it with the mouse that is difficult to replicate in the CLI. (On the other hand, keyboard shortcuts are very CLI-like.)
By "more implicit" I mean that, given certain nearly universal conventions, GUIs provide a more analogous way to interact with the computer. Both examples above illustrate this, and another would be clicking on the desired color in a colorbox versus specifying an RGB value. "Picking up" something and "moving it" with the mouse is a closer analogy to how the real world works than is writing or speaking a command unless you're a king or wizard or god--which is why most CLI aficionados wear beards.
The advantages of the command line are of course its repeatability, its modularity and its explicitness, which in the grand tradition of the CLI I need not speak verbosely about.
"Flexibility" is too ill-defined to discuss without further clarification, though I suspect that further clarification would result in CLI advocates eventually substituting "modularity" and GUI advocates eventually substituting "versatility."
It is indeed a new slashdot bug. You can however right-click and open the link in a new tab, at least on Chrome.
There's another place the GUI is king! You can't use the CLI to right-click and get a context menu in order to circumvent a stupid bug that was introduced by changes to the...uh...
For the record, I mean no disrespect, only that those wars are only rarely discussed today, and indeed when they are it is usually in the context of the loss of life they engendered. The circumstances leading up to them and the steps and missteps taken before the US got involved aren't really talked about, and in my experience unless you are someone who lost a loved one there, or are really interested in the history and politics of that time, you're not likely to know much more than a vague "we sent people there, i guess."
The first gulf war was only 20 years ago and is already discussed just as infrequently.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It is not my preferred method. It's not that I think that it will corrupt every single kid and turn them into a monster. I, personally, just think that it's barbaric and idiotic. Personally, I'd physically retaliate against someone if they tried to employ such methods against me. People are within their right to remove property from my possession if it belongs to them, however.
Okay. I guess I read more into your original comment than you put there, and mistook your adamant resolve for a crusade. You've shown, I think, that you're prepared to discipline a child in some way that is effective, which is what matters. Far too many parents today are not. I'm glad to see that although you think it is onerous, you understand that it's also not the end of the world.
Taking away a child's toys for no good reason is just as abusive psychologically
Except that not letting them use things that you bought sends a different message. In other words, you can take away privileges provided that you are responsible for them. Violence becomes less appealing if it is not used as a method of control by trusted adults, I would think.
Fair enough. We obviously disagree about that last sentence, but I see where you're coming from otherwise. I'm interested in what you think about this scenario: is it in your opinion permissible to send a child to bed without or with an abridged supper? I'm not talking about starving anyone, but say your child won't eat the prepared (nutritious) food, saying he wants cookies instead. What do you deem the appropriate action in this case? What if he wants something nutritious, just not what you've already cooked? I ask because I'm wondering if it's okay in your mind to forego the time sacrifice involved in cooking more food in a case where the only thing standing between the child and a good meal is his own preference, and because while the food is something you provide it is also to some degree not a privilege but a necessity--although again I am not talking about starving anyone. Is this a case that requires patience on your part or is it that the child needs to learn that he won't always get exactly what he wants but he will get what he needs from you, or is it some third option I haven't thought of?
means a prior relationship
Why?
Because if you are not someone who they already know and respect as an authority figure of some sort, there is no lesson to be learned or discipline to be had. It's akin to penetration testing: if a random joe comes in and steals your data, you're in a bad situation and your response should be to retaliate and defend yourself however possible. If instead the guy who steals your data is someone you've hired to improve your security and someone whom you trust to be doing it for your well-being, then you've learned about some areas in which you have weaknesses. Now, you generally don't get to hire your authority figures (which is why abuse of any kind is so terrible), but the fact that good ones are looking out for your best interests, and that you understand that at some level, makes the whole ordeal into something more benign than it would otherwise be. Does that make sense to you, even if you disagree with the method?
the action is not disciplinary but vindictive.
What if, like a parent, they "meant well"? Why is it automatically vindictive?
I hope the above illustrates why a relationship is important. You are correct that it might not necessarily be vindictive. Even if a party means well, without the subject realizing he means well no good will likely come of it, and the best and maybe only way to ensure that when considering corporal punishment (as well as other kinds) is to have an existing good relationship. When it is not an authority figure but two equal friends, there is an element of both vin
I've always wondered something about PHP: does B===D?
This is different from any other punishment/reward system...how?
No logical argument is necessary. This is more true here than with other punishments.
It really isn't. You need no logical argument to take away things the kid enjoys, either.
But wouldn't it likely be more frequently if their parent uses and teaches them that it is acceptable (even if that wasn't that intention)?
I don't know. I've never seen that reported. Have you?
Can you give an example or two, then?
They could kick them out of the building (if the kid is in a school). The school doesn't need to punish them at all.
I think I agree with you here, as long as the parents are notified. They should be responsible for any discipline. I don't condemn its use in schools in the past, but social structures have changed.
1) Take away things the kid enjoys, provided you own them in the first place.
2) Don't do anything good for them in the future that you normally would.
Explain these to them, of course.
So this too takes place in a disciplinary framework--good. The difference is that I have an extra level of punishment above (1). Perhaps I didn't make it clear that I don't think spanking is the ONLY method of punishment that should be used. (2) doesn't seem very useful. Kids live in the moment and have only a dim concept of delayed punishment. "I'm turning the car around and we're going home now" is about the only time this would make sense in my opinion.
You are working from the premise that spanking is wrong, evil, barbaric.
Because I think that it is, not that it is a universal fact (as in, that is my opinion).
Okay. I'm trying to understand why. So far you've said that its barbaric, which is begging the question, and because it can be misused, which any form of discipline can. I mean, if it's really just because you don't like the idea of it, just say as much and I'll leave you alone. I only jumped in because you mischaracterized from the start the fact that the action is disciplinary and not vindictive.
You have yet to give me any good reason to believe that my method, which works in a hundredth of the time, is less effective or more harmful than the lengthy alternative.
And what of children that adopt this sort of violent behavior because their parents utilize it? What of the ones that even go so far as to use it against their parents or others?
I have not met any people whose parents used physical discipline that later adopted violent behavior towards their parents or anyone else. I have heard of and encountered people whose parents were physically abusive that did turn out violent. There is a vast difference, and I am not arguing in the defense of physical abuse. Again, the disciplinary framework is important. Taking away a child's toys for no good reason is just as abusive psychologically, and in fact the child will probably exhibit similar deviant behavior to a physically abused child.
You shouldn't be hitting random adults or random children.
Why not? Whether they're random or not, if you hit them in the right circumstances and explain it to them, they will understand, correct?
"The right circumstances," for the nth time, means a prior relationship in which you are responsible for their development. Unless you somehow have a prior relationship with a stranger, the action is not disciplinary but vindictive.
Oh, I agree completely! Placebo is another one of those things (like suggestion) that has been labeled and then brushed aside because it is a difficult problem to tackle. Its position in science is interesting because it is universally acknowledged to exist, but the fact that it represents a huge gap in our knowledge of how our minds and bodies interact is just as universally ignored.
Its greatest efficacy is in pain management, which is subjective and can be hard to test, but it also has applications in things like allergic reactions that are unexplained (and probably unexplainable) by prevailing theories. Nobody's looking at the mechanism by which someone can cause a localized allergic reaction in their left forearm and not their right when the only difference between the two substances that touched them is that they were told one is an allergen. This has been shown to work equally well when an inert substance is used and when an allergenic substance is used. The really interesting thing about this is that unlike pain management, there is nothing anywhere in the brain or nervous system to regulate histamine response--it is a local phenomenon.
The tricky part in experimenting with placebo is to find the right subjects, as not all people are equally susceptible to placebo effects. As I wrote above, the mistake being made is to take a random sample of people when what we ought to be doing is to find individuals who show drastic effects--this would make for a more reliable means of studying the phenomenon. (Of course this should not be done for medicinal trials because the goals are completely different.) Control groups, people with an average amount of susceptibility, would be necessary too, but it ought to be an explicit variable in the experiment.
Anecdotally, it seems to me that more and more people I talk to in life and online are getting interested in the placebo effect, so maybe within the next decade we'll see some good research coming out.
My question to you is this: what if reliably triggering the placebo effect takes the form of hypnosis or visualization, basically having someone else or yourself deeply convince you that you have no pain or warts or allergies or whatever? It seems pretty clear even at this early stage that it's a case of "mind over matter," that is, the patient must believe that the desired effects will occur, and there are a whole lot of factors involved: how much the patient trusts the doctor, the diagnosis, the pill...none of which can be relied upon. Would you be willing to undergo hypnosis, or put effort into meditation-like visualization techniques? I guess what I mean is, how do you reconcile the way in which the placebo effect almost conclusively has to work with an apparent skepticism about the mind's capabilities to affect (at the very least) its body?
Back in my day, we called it Human Computer Interaction. What's so special about the computer that it gets to go first now? Hmph!
when used appropriately and early enough creates very useful psychological conditioning.
And an excellent method to brainwash people.
This is different from any other punishment/reward system...how? What's your proposal? To sit your four-year-old down and rationally explain to her that while it is her toy, Sally was playing with it at the time and she can't throw a fit and try to grab it back, because it's not nice and because Sally is also a living human being who deserves respect? Good luck with that.
Another problem is that parents have no real restrictions on what they can do (aside from not punishing them too harshly). Don't believe in god? Time for a spanking! You did something that I don't like? Time for violence! Sure, other punishments could be used in their place, but, as you said, physical violence is an effective method at conditioning, even if you don't have an actual logical argument.
You willfully ignored most of the context of what I wrote. Corporal punishment is to be used sparingly and as a deterrent. With the threat in place, the actual use is infrequent. I described a framework within which it should be used, and you can read it above. If you can't comprehend the difference between willy-nilly beatings for something the parent doesn't like and an actual system of punishing bad behavior that has the child's best interest at heart, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss this at all. I suppose it's always wrong for a man to cut a little boy too--even when the man is a doctor about to perform a life-saving surgery? Circumstances matter.
Kids will likely realize this and begin employing violence themselves. And, really, why shouldn't they?
That tends to happen on its own. It's amazing how easily it is curbed with a spanking, along with--since apparently I have to spell it out for you--the warning that if he does it again he'll get another spanking. If the child understands only that, it is enough for now. If the child asks why it's okay for you to hit him but not for him to hit other people, then he's ready to start learning about how the situations differ, and he probably won't need corporal punishment much longer.
you end up with a bunch of brats who know that the adults around them are relatively powerless to stop them from doing anything but criminal acts.
Powerless? Not at all.
Can you give an example or two, then? Notice that I have been furnishing every point I make with something to support it, not simply making unfounded statements.
patience
If you don't have time and/or patience, you should not have children.
Again, you completely ignore the context, made blatantly obvious by pulling out a single word. You are working from the premise that spanking is wrong, evil, barbaric. Nowhere do you even mention the only salient point you could actually argue, that it is bad for the child, so I had to do it for you. I am working from the premise that spanking is not bad for the child. You have yet to give me any good reason to believe that my method, which works in a hundredth of the time, is less effective or more harmful than the lengthy alternative. So no, I don't have the patience to needlessly waste time when I have a solution that will result in all parties getting back to enjoying their lives sooner. The unwarranted personal attack also does not help your case. For such an "idiotic and barbaric" person as I must be for supporting spankings, you're the real asshole here.
And corporal punishment does work on adults--you've never had or heard of a confrontation with a friend over something that's basically resolved after a brief scuffle? The trick, just like with children, is that there has to be a more-than-superficial relationship, otherwise it is indeed senseless violence and
I think that the extreme pacifism displayed by many adults today is what is idiotic. I grew up in a loving household, but I was spanked on occasion when I did something particularly bad. Other times I was made to stand in the corner in a "time out" (no sitting on a comfy couch for me; it was stand in the corner and face the wall), and I did it because I knew I'd get The Dreaded Wooden Spoon if I defied my punishment. But without those first few times actually getting hit the threat would have been empty. I should also note that I was in most cases warned not to do something then did it anyway before any sort of punishment was given. The goal, after all, is to have the kid obey you, not to hurt the kid.
And that's the thing. "Physical force against someone who poses no physical threat" when used appropriately and early enough creates very useful psychological conditioning. It doesn't take long before the threat of force is enough to deter bad behavior most of the time, so force need be used only rarely. And the thing to keep in mind is that the whole situation is temporary. That kind of punishment is only needed when you are trying to curb bad behavior that the kid probably knows is bad but doesn't really understand why, and you have no other leverage on him--too young to be seeing friends often, so grounding won't work; no allowance; etc. Of course it can be misused, and I don't know how much I'd trust the modern school system to properly administer it. There is a component of judgment which requires that you know the kid's temperament that isn't very prevalent in schools; in fact it's too often missing in homes.
Without something like corporal punishment to keep a kid in line before he has the capacity to understand why, you end up with a bunch of brats who know that the adults around them are relatively powerless to stop them from doing anything but criminal acts. That's going to make for a much more barbaric society than a few young'uns with red bottoms, in my opinion. Now, I have seen some parents do the time-out thing and when the kid tries to leave, pick him back up and put him back down in the chair. If you have the patience to hover for what might turn into three hours of doing that with a screaming kid, that's your prerogative--though please, please, PLEASE do not do it anywhere where innocent bystanders are subject to it. I think a few stinging whacks get the point across in a hundredth of the time with no ill effects, so that's what I'll be doing when I have kids.
(And corporal punishment does work on adults--you've never had or heard of a confrontation with a friend over something that's basically resolved after a brief scuffle? The trick, just like with children, is that there has to be a more-than-superficial relationship, otherwise it is indeed senseless violence and counterproductive.)
If you're interested in a scientific framework that actually incorporates the thousands of examples of supernormal phenomena (including things like telepathy, near death and out-of-body experiences, genius and creativity, veridical apparitions and the like), I suggest taking a look at the book Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. A fellow slashdotter turned me on to the book and I've been impressed by the scientific way in which they have both presented and synthesized the evidence for the existence of self apart from brain activity. If you were being facetious, ignore the rest of this post because it's pretty much a book review.
The gist of the presented theory as I understand it is a kind of dualism--a dirty word, I know--that unlike classical dualism posits the material and non-material realms as being very intertwined. It has its roots in the classical psychological theories of Myers, James and others, and I've found it to be very intriguing so far (I'm about 2/3 of the way through). I have read other books on the subject but most of them (even the ones I like) suffer from untrustworthy authors pushing some kind of new-age agenda. These authors, in contrast, are building their case on sound reasoning and evaluation of evidence that tends to be summarily dismissed from mainstream discourse simply because it doesn't fit the prevailing theory. I speak here of a large volume evidence gathered by practicing psychologists, not anecdotes from your stoned uncle. In fact, nearly the last hundred pages of the book (!) are an appendix of case studies containing supporting evidence. Cases taken in isolation are merely interesting (and the authors are quick to point out any weaknesses found in them), but when taken en masse are quite compelling. What the authors are asking for is not acceptance of their theory; they are instead asking for the scientific community to really consider the existing body of evidence and to do further experiments based on it. Much like the creator of the theory, they recognize that further study is sorely needed before anything conclusive can be drawn. Those experiments will either lend weight to their theory or will point in a different direction--either way, we've expanded our scientific knowledge.
A slightly more detailed description of Myers' theory (upon which this book builds) is that consciousness (and the brain) acts as a filter, adapted by evolution for survival in the physical world. The authors use the analogy of the electromagnetic spectrum: if the whole range of mind is the entire spectrum, then everyday consciousness represents the visual portion. At the "infrared" boundary we have things like control of the heartbeat, allergies, body temperature, and other low-level body operations that can with practice be influenced by the mind, sometimes spectacularly. At the "ultraviolet" end lie things like genius, creativity, and the whole range of "paranormal" phenomena. (This metaphor has interesting ties to Hindu mysticism that AFAIK are not mentioned by the authors.) The reason we don't see a lot of it is because it has not been useful from an evolutionary perspective. Some psychological disorders such as Multiple Personality Disorder are according to this theory pathological manifestations of things which lie (metaphorically again) towards the high end of the spectrum.
The use of hypnosis is responsible for accessing a lot of this stuff, and that it is routinely brushed aside as "merely suggestion" is a great failing of contemporary psychologists. Saying that an allergy can be removed or triggered by suggestion leads one to believe that the mechanism by which local skin cells can be agitated or inhibited by thought or will is both understood and not worth investigating further. Hypnosis may very well be the best investigative tool we have for getting at the heart of the mind-body problem. And they specifically warn against usi
You don't need additional regulation to enforce contract law. This case would probably be covered under misrepresentation (I am not a contract lawyer).
"Half the government being influenced if not run by these companies" is indeed a huge problem here. Do you think that regulatory agencies would be composed entirely of people from the other half of the government? Historical and contemporary developments show quite the opposite.
An important difference is that when it was brought to light that Google and Apple were tracking these things, there were lawsuits filed and a general uproar that is prompting changes (at least in Apple's case). The FBI's response is instead going to be "tough titties." Not to mention that the corporate products are optional and not backed up by the threat of force.
No, only eight, of which I am one. I know because I hyperlearned it.
You are correct. The term "schizophrenia" means "split mind," and it is probably that misnomer that causes the confusion.
Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) or Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), which both refer to the same thing, is in every case I am aware of caused by a severely traumatic experience. It is a completely different phenomenon and an utterly fascinating one from both a psychological and physiological perspective. There are changes in the body that are very difficult to explain with conventional theories of how mind affects body--from mildly interesting ones like differing allergies to the startling changes in visual acuity as seen here.
Your thinking is too centralized. If the tech gets cheap enough, I think you'll start to see a lot more private homes installing solar panels. Batteries aren't an issue because they'll still be on the grid--solar is primarily supplemental and will be for some time. If the panel owner ends up generating more electricity than he is using during the day, in many (most?) places the electric company pays him for it.
The system is in place. The trick is that the public has to realize that voting is one of the least important political actions. Far more important is to be in frequent communication with your representatives' offices and convincing others to do the same. It takes a decent chunk of people making a lot of noise to convince a politician that he'll lose the next election by passing a particular measure. That requires paying consistent attention to what's happening in the off-season, and it requires a much larger time investment than voting once a year or so.
The politicians are certainly shirking their responsibilities to the public by ignoring what it wants until they are beaten over the head with it. The public is equally guilty of shirking its head-beating duties.
According to one of the third party companies with a dev rig, the new motion controllers are better than PS3 Move, which is by all accounts better than Motion Plus.
I'm pretty interested in the form factor of the controllers. They're rumored to have HD screens in them, so does that mean Nintendo is moving away from the wand format it just established? Will they return to a two-handed grip only with motion--like Sixaxis--or do they have a new Wonka-esque contraption in the works?
If it's backwards-compatible and they create a real multiplayer environment and marketplace for more indie (read: not FPS) games like those found on XBLA, which has also been hinted at, it would be very compelling as a Wii owner. WiiWare has some good stuff but misses out on a lot because networked multiplayer is rightfully in.
With HDTV support and current-gen power under the hood all but confirmed, this thing could be a contender. Nintendo will likely have a year or two to show hardcore gamers if they're serious before MS and Sony can up the ante with shinier hardware, and I think we're near the point where diminishing returns start to show in that department--assuming game publishers are even willing to increase their production costs threefold to model better raindrop splashes or what have you.
That doesn't make sense. One of the few things that every living species has in common is that it tries to take as much energy as there is available. If these plants evolved in a place with an abundance of energy from an Earth-centric perspective, why would they evolve in a way that doesn't make use of it?
(One wonders why Earthlike plant life would evolve at all, given the drastic differences that must be introduced by having two suns.)
It's a Ginsberg parody.
when there is a fall in prices generally/across the board (i.e. the definition of deflation) then consumers will tend to stop spending.
Do you have a source for this? Facts, not theory, please.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it. I thought the reason we want to keep inflation down is to ensure people have enough purchasing power that they continue to spend. roman_mir gave examples of deflation (the increase of value of a currency) spurring growth in 19C and 20C United States. I have heard from many sources that deflation is a bad thing, but I haven't heard it backed up with any real-world cases.
Until negative interest rates are invented, no one wants to borrow because the value of your debt increases even though you do absolutely nothing. With consumers minimising consumption (and increasing savings) you have an ever increasing savings/investment imbalance in the economy (excessive savings, and no investment).
Debt, then, is the real source of the problem. It is viewed as a way of life and a positive thing to have. This is also ridiculous if you give it any thought, and the meme only entered and conquered the culture over the past sixty years. Here's a hint: even a steadily inflating currency isn't going to outrun the interest generated by the debt. If more people had practiced saving money and living within their means, there are a number of past and future crises that would have been averted. If more people start to eliminate their debts and practice sound money management, "the economy" may or may not remain sluggish but each individual will be much better off.
It makes more sense to me to strengthen the economy from a position of strength, not one of increasing weakness through further debt.
And also there was no MacBeth II: Scottish Boogaloo. Though the Globe did have a box office.
*For very old values of New.
I play it. For me, building things is one of the less interesting aspects. The part I'm most interested in is exploration. The world generator is very good at making interesting places to explore, especially underground. Almost without fail after half an hour of cave exploration I stumble upon huge sets of catacombs full of water and lava flows and dangerous groups of monsters (often with me at a disadvantage due to terrain). I love trying to light up cave systems and getting quite lost despite my best efforts to mark the way out, then eventually stumbling upon a previously explored section or finding a new exit.
I like exploring caves in real life, too, which is probably why I get so much enjoyment out of it. I only fire up the game once every few weeks, but when I do I usually lose 5-6 hours to it over the course of a day or two. It's certainly held my interest enough that I've gotten more than my money's worth with it, and since I'll be getting all future updates for free it was quite the bargain.
Emacs and Vi are certainly at least as different as Eclipse and Visual Studio. There is plenty of room on the command line for appreciably different paradigms and conventions.
The advantage of the GUI is that it can potentially make actions both more implicit and more immediate. For an example of immediacy, to copy a file from one place to another on the command line you must navigate to the source file and then execute the copy command which requires a degree of planning in that you must know the destination. In a GUI you must navigate to the file, but then you are free to copy it to the clipboard without knowing where your destination is yet. In another case, you may have just dumped a month's worth of photos from your camera (or a bunch of CDs) onto your computer and would like to organize them, specifically by putting all photos taken of hot chicks in a "hot chicks" folder (or favorite songs into a "favorite songs" folder). Tasks like these lend themselves to a GUI because it's not really a batch process--a human decision is required for each element (and GUIs have thumbnails!). In this case using the mouse to select files in a list is bound to be faster than typing them out into a move command, even with auto-complete. There is an immediacy to spotting a file and selecting it with the mouse that is difficult to replicate in the CLI. (On the other hand, keyboard shortcuts are very CLI-like.)
By "more implicit" I mean that, given certain nearly universal conventions, GUIs provide a more analogous way to interact with the computer. Both examples above illustrate this, and another would be clicking on the desired color in a colorbox versus specifying an RGB value. "Picking up" something and "moving it" with the mouse is a closer analogy to how the real world works than is writing or speaking a command unless you're a king or wizard or god--which is why most CLI aficionados wear beards.
The advantages of the command line are of course its repeatability, its modularity and its explicitness, which in the grand tradition of the CLI I need not speak verbosely about.
"Flexibility" is too ill-defined to discuss without further clarification, though I suspect that further clarification would result in CLI advocates eventually substituting "modularity" and GUI advocates eventually substituting "versatility."
It is indeed a new slashdot bug. You can however right-click and open the link in a new tab, at least on Chrome.
There's another place the GUI is king! You can't use the CLI to right-click and get a context menu in order to circumvent a stupid bug that was introduced by changes to the...uh...
Never mind.
For the record, I mean no disrespect, only that those wars are only rarely discussed today, and indeed when they are it is usually in the context of the loss of life they engendered. The circumstances leading up to them and the steps and missteps taken before the US got involved aren't really talked about, and in my experience unless you are someone who lost a loved one there, or are really interested in the history and politics of that time, you're not likely to know much more than a vague "we sent people there, i guess."
The first gulf war was only 20 years ago and is already discussed just as infrequently.
Korea and Vietnam were more than three weeks ago. They no longer count.