Parents + 2 kids + 5 computers. Computers are just tools. It's not hard really. The thing is to learn how to use them, how to get something of value out of using them.
My 5 y.o. daughter has as much access to a Powerbook as she likes, providing I'm not using it at the time, and I'd usually defer. She has learnt to get to a couple of sites on which she plays games, many of them educational; print stuff out; launch iPhoto and iTunes and use them in a limited way. Quite a bit of it is self-taught. She's exploring.
And I bet she's both learning and having fun. I also think she's learning to discriminate between good and bad/useful and not so useful, and OK, it's baby steps at the moment. But it's already clear that she has some goals - she particularly wants to learn how to read and so she prefers stuff which is geared to that end. She also likes numbers and very basic arithmetic - so she doesn't actually spend that much time playing games which don't have that sort of content.
We live in the Tropics, so she spends most of her time outdoors with her friends, when not at school. Playing with your mates v/s playing with a computer - sounds like it's about learning to make choices. Yes, she does spend some quite lengthy times in front of the computer, mostly unsupervised. It's not hard to find out what she's being looking at - after all I'm curious! And if she learns nothing else other than how to discriminate for herself between good and bad stuff, be it from a computer or anywhere else, I think it will be all worthwhile.
I admit it - I do still rely on books for stuff I want to absorb in detail. Problem is, I am beginning to find it hard to 'think' properly when looking at a book. I have to be sitting in front of a screen. It's a bit like not being able to get the thought processes going so easily when staring at a bit of paper - I have to have my hands on a keyboard.
Anyone else know what I mean?
So going to the can and hoping to achieve useful work is a bit of a problem - I have to take a laptop and a book...
Just 'wanting' to invade another country is not sufficient reason for going to war. And doing it based on an assumption
Also it was assumed that Iraq was interested in obtaining some serious weapons to threaten it's neighboring regions and to make the UN and US think twice about invading.
doesn't make it right either.
I think what the poster of this comment is referring to is the right of pre-emptive self defence. It clearly does not apply in the case of the Invasion of Iraq. IANAL but here's a considered opinion given to the British House of Commons (for full article: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/ cmselect/cmfaff/441/441we43.htm)
THE LEGALITY OF PRE-EMPTIVE MILITARY ACTION
It is crucial, first of all, to carefully distinguish between pre-emptive and preventive military action. While, in certain limited circumstances, pre-emptive action may be permissible under existing international law, preventive military action clearly is not.
Pursuant to the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" expressed in Article 51 of the Charter, states may use force to respond to an "armed attack." Customary international law that exists in parallel with the Charter permits anticipatory action to the extent that it is necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The parameters of this customary law right of anticipatory self-defence were first enunciated in the 1842 Caroline incident between Britain and the United States. In a letter to his British counterpart, US Secretary of State Daniel Webster described anticipatory self-defence as strictly limited to cases involving "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."[6] The criteria for the limitation of anticipatory self-defence outlined in the Caroline case remain valid today.
In short, international law permits anticipatory action that is necessary to avert an imminent attack. Such anticipatory self-defense must also be proportional to the threat. Although customary law does extend the margin of appreciation surrounding the right to self-defense, it does not allow for entirely self-serving claims. The fact that anticipatory self-defense must be assessed against the criteria of necessity and proportionality imposes external measures of evaluation.
Anticipatory self-defence, as allowed under customary international law, does not encompass "threat pre-emption" or, for greater clarity, a purely "preventive" war. Threat pre-emption, as outlined in the 2002 US National Security Strategy,[7] is not an expansion by analogy of an existing category. It is the launching of a new concept, one that cannot provide any effective normative guidance. Threat pre-emption, or preventive war, may superficially seem to be a legal norm, but it is actually no norm at all, for it leaves the assessment of danger entirely in the hands of a self-interested actor, the state claiming the right to pursue a preventive war.
Suffice is to say that there was no imminent threat posed to the US or to any other country in the region.
And the real crying shame is that not too many people seem to mind about the lies... People who would probably call themselves fair-minded, decent and honest. People who probably feel democracy is important.
We've reached the stage where so many are so disconnected from the political process and feel so helpless in the face of the parties who only care about the 'big end of town' that lies that kill thousands are OK, provided it is somewhere else and the victems have a different skin colour.
Time we took democracy back for...... THE PEOPLE!
It's actually pretty simple really. If there were wmds in Iraq and forces capable of using them, I doubt the Coalition of the Willies would have invaded. It was only because 10 years of sanctions had degraded the Iraqi armed forces, which were probably not much of a match anyway, that an invasion was even contemplated.
Would the US have been able to withstand casualties, probably numbering in the thousands, in the first few days of the war? For a cause that had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism? For a country that posed no significant threat to anyone other than it's immediate neighbours? My guess is NO!
The answer to questions about Iraq is rooted in the neo-con agenda, fuelled by the self-licking ice-cream cone.
Slashdot Mirror
My 5 y.o. daughter has as much access to a Powerbook as she likes, providing I'm not using it at the time, and I'd usually defer. She has learnt to get to a couple of sites on which she plays games, many of them educational; print stuff out; launch iPhoto and iTunes and use them in a limited way. Quite a bit of it is self-taught. She's exploring.
And I bet she's both learning and having fun. I also think she's learning to discriminate between good and bad/useful and not so useful, and OK, it's baby steps at the moment. But it's already clear that she has some goals - she particularly wants to learn how to read and so she prefers stuff which is geared to that end. She also likes numbers and very basic arithmetic - so she doesn't actually spend that much time playing games which don't have that sort of content.
We live in the Tropics, so she spends most of her time outdoors with her friends, when not at school. Playing with your mates v/s playing with a computer - sounds like it's about learning to make choices. Yes, she does spend some quite lengthy times in front of the computer, mostly unsupervised. It's not hard to find out what she's being looking at - after all I'm curious! And if she learns nothing else other than how to discriminate for herself between good and bad stuff, be it from a computer or anywhere else, I think it will be all worthwhile.
But he earned $40 a pop So who was paying the $40 a pop? And why aren't they in Club Fed right alongside Mr Jayne?
Anyone else know what I mean?
So going to the can and hoping to achieve useful work is a bit of a problem - I have to take a laptop and a book...
Bet Kerry would have, having announced there were some and all.
I think what the poster of this comment is referring to is the right of pre-emptive self defence. It clearly does not apply in the case of the Invasion of Iraq. IANAL but here's a considered opinion given to the British House of Commons (for full article: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/ cmselect/cmfaff/441/441we43.htm)
Suffice is to say that there was no imminent threat posed to the US or to any other country in the region.
Pray, do tell. So what did 9/11 have to do with Iraq? Only facts please!
We've reached the stage where so many are so disconnected from the political process and feel so helpless in the face of the parties who only care about the 'big end of town' that lies that kill thousands are OK, provided it is somewhere else and the victems have a different skin colour. Time we took democracy back for... ... THE PEOPLE!
It's actually pretty simple really. If there were wmds in Iraq and forces capable of using them, I doubt the Coalition of the Willies would have invaded. It was only because 10 years of sanctions had degraded the Iraqi armed forces, which were probably not much of a match anyway, that an invasion was even contemplated. Would the US have been able to withstand casualties, probably numbering in the thousands, in the first few days of the war? For a cause that had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism? For a country that posed no significant threat to anyone other than it's immediate neighbours? My guess is NO! The answer to questions about Iraq is rooted in the neo-con agenda, fuelled by the self-licking ice-cream cone.