I suspect that is I were to use the OP's definition of being interested in "anything electronic," one of our dogs would fit it. Of course, she also eats her own poop.
Re:Wait until he can READ! Unbelievable...
on
Computer For a Child?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why does this person as a parent frighten me?
Because it sounds like he is parenting for his own gratification by trying to force a "Mini-Me" identity upon his son instead of letting the child develop in a normal progression. It's disturbing.
You're joking, right? It sounds like this is more for you than for your son. Look, we all want our children to be interested in what we're interested in, but don't you think that this is a little overkill and a little pushy? All children are interested by lights and sounds, etc. but that doesn't mean that he is ready for his own real computer. Buy him one of those toy ones that make sounds and have big flashing lights, he'll like it better and when he breaks it, you'll only be out twenty bucks.
The US is well known the world over for wiping its ass with the Geneva convention.
Just like in everything else the US thinks it's above following the rules.
BTW how's thinking you're above the rules of economics working out for you?
Awesome. The parent introduces well-organized and pertinent information into the discussion and you respond with some unsupported ass-hattery that sounds remarkably like "I know you are but what am I?"
Considering that the use of who instead of whom is not ambiguous I think you should pick a better battle. The first purpose is communication. Following the subtle rules, while not completely unimportant, is a bit down the list.
The AC was probably a bit pedantic with his/her touchiness over the indirect object pronoun thingy, but then again, the OP did kind of introduce formality into the occasion with the whole "to who(m) it may concern" bit.
Not that I personally would've bit on that; I usually save my ire for those who spell paid as P-A-Y-E-D. That I won't tolerate!
That *is* popular belief: "it takes money to make money". If you have a
lot of money already and aren't stupid, you pay clever financial advisers to
make *more* money with it. The key here is *having* the money in the first
place. If you don't have disposable income to invest, you won't get richer this
way. If you gift this money to your offspring, they can invest it per your
instructions, BTW.
What an absolute load of bull. Investing $40 per week for 40 years at
10% interest would result in nearly $1,000,000. If one started with $40
per week and contributed more as he or she earned more, then there would be many
times that. The key is to begin investing *early* and delaying
gratification. Also, who needs a financial advisor? Mutual funds,
401K and IRAs should be sufficient for anyone willing to educate themselves.
1) There's an idea of fairness that is violated when the simple fact of
your parentage means your life is utterly different; the idea of America as the
land of rugged individualism and opportunity doesn't line up very well with the
vast difference of opportunity available to two randomly selected infants.
There's an idea of fairness that is violated when the simple fact that you have
worked hard, been thrifty and delayed gratification means that the government
can mandate what you can and cannot do with the money you earned.
2) It's not about punishing the "over-privileged" so the
"under-privileged" can gloat; it's about trying to partially even the playing
field.
My mother and brother and I came to this country penniless in the 1960s.
We accessed the opportunities that are available to everyone, worked hard, saved
and sacrificed. My wife (who also came from a similar background) and I
work a lot, save a lot and donate a lot. Even though we have the means to
drive new cars and live in a big house, we drive older, less prestigious models
and live in the same modest home we bought years ago. We have never asked,
nor wanted anyone to "even the playing field" for us.
It's the government's business because we have banded together to form a
society with a government, and we as a society have chosen to let the government
skim off the top of some types of transactions as a way to keep the
communal services funded. Money transfers between people is one method that we
allow to be taxed.
Right, skim off the top, not take all of it or mandate what must be done with
all of it.
And, besides, if you want your hard-earned wealth to go to your children, why don't you sit down and write out a check for $30,000 (IIRC) to each of them right now? Then do it again next year, and every year until you die. Voila, no government involvement in the transfer of your wealth to your kids. When they get married, or they have kids, you can write the same check to their spouses and their kids and transfer your wealth even faster.
There are a number of reasons that one wouldn't want to do that and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. However, I will give you a
couple:
* Contrary to popular belief, a great deal of the wealthy have gotten that way by saving money and taking advantage of the principle of compound interest. With a person saving long-term, the
majority of the wealth will be generated in the last ten or so years. If one gifts the principle there will be exponentially less money at death.
If one waits until the money has been earned, it severely limits the number of
years that one can give.
* Oftentimes one's offspring is not in the correct frame-of-mind to receive large amounts of money when they are still young, once again limiting the number of years to gift the money.
In any event, I guess that I don't see why it matters to you, the government, or
anyone else if I give my children $30,000 per year every year or just give them
a lump sum when I die. I can't see the advantage to that, other than it
seems to satisfy some urge that people have to punish the people who have more
than themselves. If you find yourself in that group, it might interest you
to know that households how have a total wealth of more 1 million dollars (about
7% of the population of the US) give about half of all of the money donated to
charities.
I'm merely saddened your plan doesn't involve fixing any of Somalia's real problems. Just killing offenders.
It's funny, the shit has been hitting the fan for innocent civilians in Somalia but it only gets real attention (and demand for NATO intervention) when it starts to affect our trade ships... heaven forbid our trade be interrupted!
In principle I agree with what your sentiments, but it isn't as if
helping Somalia hasn't been tried. Unfortunately, the experience has been that going to Somalia and trying to help has often meant that one will be killed. Merely sending food, technology or money results in one or more of the ruling juntas stealing it.
It's a extremely unfortunate situation in which many innocents suffer and die, and many people and governments would happily give of their time and money to help the situation. But, sadly, it's kind of like giving money to your drug-addicted brother-in-law--helping him doesn't help him.
That's one reason why we should bring back massive (i.e. 90%) inheritance taxes. We need to force rich aging people to recognize their own finality.
I fail to see why wanting to transfer my hard-earned wealth to my children is any of the government's business.
The problem with your plan is that many of the supposed "rich" are merely people who have been prudent with their money by investing in their retirement from an early age instead of blowing it on new cars and oversized houses. Why should people who are thrifty enough to resist the consumer mentality be penalized?
It doesn't does it? In fact, it's downright terrifying that a government official can get away with performing a witch hunt against a dissenting citizen who dared to disagree with Dear Leader. I fully expect to be modded down by other members of the Obama personality cult.
Is it just me or has there been a strong resurgence of libertarianism, most notably of the Ayn Rand type? I understand that there is a reaction against the one-and-a-half party system in the US, but for the love of Christ, do that many people really think that a totally unfettered form of capitalism will really benefit the greatest number of people?
I always figured that most people were in favor of a mixed economy involving some amount of freedoms and some amount of government controls, with the battle being fought along the lines of how much regulation and of what. Myself, I have generally been in favor of less.
Looking at the nutrition information on a package of crackers the other day, I remembered back to a time when food labels didn't have to list the ingredients or nutritional info. If Atlas was trying to make healthy and informed decisions concerning his diet and tried to discern what was in the food he was about to eat, guess what he would do. He'd shrug... But seriously, the labeling of food, while somewhat gameable, is one of those things that benefits a large number of people without an onerous amount of government restriction of business. You know, where the positives outweigh the negatives. Call me crazy, but that seems like a good thing.
As an aside, I am also kind of amazed that people find her books compelling, or even interesting. To be fair, I do acknowledge that her depiction of the protagonists' perseverance and accomplishment could be somewhat inspiring if it weren't completely overwhelmed by impossibly clumsy and self-serving dialog. The words that come out of her characters' mouths couldn't be more contrived and childish if they were in a Saturday morning cartoon. The dialog, obviously meant more for furthering Rand's crackpot philosophy than anything else, consists mainly of the hideous villains spouting some strawman for her virile heroes to demolish. Yawn.
Bingo! I'll believe in cloud computing when I can get a reliable and fast enough internet connection.
While we have unlimited data here from the phone company, the quality and speed of the connection has degraded badly in the six years that we have lived here.
What generally happens is that you start noticing your connection dropping sporadically, you call tech support and they "fix" it by throttling you back even further. While the service I have is advertised as 5Mbps, I can only manage about 1100 kbps. If you bitch, they politely remind you that they only guarantee 768kbps.
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things you mention were un-Christian.
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things were un-Everything (un-British, un-Hindu, un-African, un-Whatever). That's just the way things were everywhere until fairly recently. Maybe you and the parent should keep the broadbrush in its holster a little longer next time.
...but the fact that the first wheel has been put in motion (competent President)...
Not to burst your bubble, but I think the jury is still out on that one. He hasn't even been sworn into office and his record as a Senator is really quite limited. He may indeed turn out to be competent, and I certainly hope that he does, but you're jumping the gun.
I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.
I take it you were born after the 1984 Reagan-Mondale election.
Actually, I'm old enough to have voted in that election, and I don't remember the worldwide celebration that is happening now.
I get it that everyone wants to bask in the glow, but at some point, reality is going to come crashing in.
I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.
I'm not saying that he deserves it, but when these pie-in-the-sky types realize that he is human like the rest, and that he won't be able to wipe the tear from every eye, his approval rating will take a serious hit.
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a mental disorder. It
is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual: "The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive
pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in
childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."
Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder.
I do not think that word means what you think it means...:)
Intelligent [in-tel-i-juhnt]....
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment
3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence...
Perhaps you meant to slag "educated" people?
Interesting that you left definition #1 out, having to do with capacity and latency, which is what is
more generally meant by intelligence. IQ tests attempt to measure intelligence by evaluating the capacity to learn and the quickness with
which one learns.
If the ability to use "good judgment" were what we generally refer to as intelligence, one would have to conclude that Hans Reiser isn't intelligent, that is unless he *wanted* to be somebody's bitch at San Quentin. I think that
maybe you're confusing intelligence with
wisdom.
Nah, but the combination of an already right leaning supreme court
Now I couldn't decide which was worse, the prospect of more right-leaning justices, or one party having the Congress and the presidency. Either way, it's a crap shoot.
I was so torn that I actually didn't decide until I was in the booth. Hope it turns out well...
It's funny how the socialist tag only seems to apply to handouts to poor people. Somehow, when businesses, farmers, and others have their hands out, it's not socialism--it's investing in America.
Agreed. And yet it seems akin to a couple of guys arguing about why the car won't start. One says, "the car won't start, rogue clowns from outer space must have stolen the spark plugs." The other replies, "that's ridiculous, clowns' big gloves wouldn't allow them to manipulate the spark plugs; they obviously stole the rotor cap."
So--imperfect analogy aside--the second argument might have one more jump of logic to it, but the fact that both are completely out of the realm of reason hardly gives the proponents of the latter theory the right to the type of smugness that one generally sees here pertaining to a loose Creation theory.
It's like citizen A looking down his nose at citizen B because B is "investing" in a Powerball Lottery ticket (~one chance in 150 million) for his retirement, and citizen A congratulating himself for being a shrewd investor he because he's working the Pick Five (~ one chance in 3 million) for his nestegg. The fact that A is fifty times more likely to win, doesn't mean that he isn't going to end up eating cat food in his dotage, just like B.
In any event, I'm not pushing one or the other--the fact is that we don't know and we will never know unless there is some truth to the Creation theory. I'm comfortable enough with what I believe that I don't feel the need to ridicule or discount someone else's opinion just because they believe something different.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that is I were to use the OP's definition of being interested in "anything electronic," one of our dogs would fit it. Of course, she also eats her own poop.
Why does this person as a parent frighten me?
Because it sounds like he is parenting for his own gratification by trying to force a "Mini-Me" identity upon his son instead of letting the child develop in a normal progression. It's disturbing.
You're joking, right? It sounds like this is more for you than for your son. Look, we all want our children to be interested in what we're interested in, but don't you think that this is a little overkill and a little pushy? All children are interested by lights and sounds, etc. but that doesn't mean that he is ready for his own real computer. Buy him one of those toy ones that make sounds and have big flashing lights, he'll like it better and when he breaks it, you'll only be out twenty bucks.
The US is well known the world over for wiping its ass with the Geneva convention. Just like in everything else the US thinks it's above following the rules.
BTW how's thinking you're above the rules of economics working out for you?
Awesome. The parent introduces well-organized and pertinent information into the discussion and you respond with some unsupported ass-hattery that sounds remarkably like "I know you are but what am I?"
Considering that the use of who instead of whom is not ambiguous I think you should pick a better battle. The first purpose is communication. Following the subtle rules, while not completely unimportant, is a bit down the list.
The AC was probably a bit pedantic with his/her touchiness over the indirect object pronoun thingy, but then again, the OP did kind of introduce formality into the occasion with the whole "to who(m) it may concern" bit.
Not that I personally would've bit on that; I usually save my ire for those who spell paid as P-A-Y-E-D. That I won't tolerate!
That *is* popular belief: "it takes money to make money". If you have a lot of money already and aren't stupid, you pay clever financial advisers to make *more* money with it. The key here is *having* the money in the first place. If you don't have disposable income to invest, you won't get richer this way. If you gift this money to your offspring, they can invest it per your instructions, BTW.
What an absolute load of bull. Investing $40 per week for 40 years at 10% interest would result in nearly $1,000,000. If one started with $40 per week and contributed more as he or she earned more, then there would be many times that. The key is to begin investing *early* and delaying gratification. Also, who needs a financial advisor? Mutual funds, 401K and IRAs should be sufficient for anyone willing to educate themselves.
1) There's an idea of fairness that is violated when the simple fact of your parentage means your life is utterly different; the idea of America as the land of rugged individualism and opportunity doesn't line up very well with the vast difference of opportunity available to two randomly selected infants.
There's an idea of fairness that is violated when the simple fact that you have worked hard, been thrifty and delayed gratification means that the government can mandate what you can and cannot do with the money you earned.
2) It's not about punishing the "over-privileged" so the "under-privileged" can gloat; it's about trying to partially even the playing field.
My mother and brother and I came to this country penniless in the 1960s. We accessed the opportunities that are available to everyone, worked hard, saved and sacrificed. My wife (who also came from a similar background) and I work a lot, save a lot and donate a lot. Even though we have the means to drive new cars and live in a big house, we drive older, less prestigious models and live in the same modest home we bought years ago. We have never asked, nor wanted anyone to "even the playing field" for us.
It's the government's business because we have banded together to form a society with a government, and we as a society have chosen to let the government skim off the top of some types of transactions as a way to keep the communal services funded. Money transfers between people is one method that we allow to be taxed.
Right, skim off the top, not take all of it or mandate what must be done with all of it.
And, besides, if you want your hard-earned wealth to go to your children, why don't you sit down and write out a check for $30,000 (IIRC) to each of them right now? Then do it again next year, and every year until you die. Voila, no government involvement in the transfer of your wealth to your kids. When they get married, or they have kids, you can write the same check to their spouses and their kids and transfer your wealth even faster.
There are a number of reasons that one wouldn't want to do that and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. However, I will give you a couple:
* Contrary to popular belief, a great deal of the wealthy have gotten that way by saving money and taking advantage of the principle of compound interest. With a person saving long-term, the majority of the wealth will be generated in the last ten or so years. If one gifts the principle there will be exponentially less money at death. If one waits until the money has been earned, it severely limits the number of years that one can give.
* Oftentimes one's offspring is not in the correct frame-of-mind to receive large amounts of money when they are still young, once again limiting the number of years to gift the money.
In any event, I guess that I don't see why it matters to you, the government, or anyone else if I give my children $30,000 per year every year or just give them a lump sum when I die. I can't see the advantage to that, other than it seems to satisfy some urge that people have to punish the people who have more than themselves. If you find yourself in that group, it might interest you to know that households how have a total wealth of more 1 million dollars (about 7% of the population of the US) give about half of all of the money donated to charities.
I'm merely saddened your plan doesn't involve fixing any of Somalia's real problems. Just killing offenders.
... heaven forbid our trade be interrupted!
It's funny, the shit has been hitting the fan for innocent civilians in Somalia but it only gets real attention (and demand for NATO intervention) when it starts to affect our trade ships
In principle I agree with what your sentiments, but it isn't as if helping Somalia hasn't been tried. Unfortunately, the experience has been that going to Somalia and trying to help has often meant that one will be killed. Merely sending food, technology or money results in one or more of the ruling juntas stealing it.
It's a extremely unfortunate situation in which many innocents suffer and die, and many people and governments would happily give of their time and money to help the situation. But, sadly, it's kind of like giving money to your drug-addicted brother-in-law--helping him doesn't help him.
That's one reason why we should bring back massive (i.e. 90%) inheritance taxes. We need to force rich aging people to recognize their own finality.
I fail to see why wanting to transfer my hard-earned wealth to my children is any of the government's business.
The problem with your plan is that many of the supposed "rich" are merely people who have been prudent with their money by investing in their retirement from an early age instead of blowing it on new cars and oversized houses. Why should people who are thrifty enough to resist the consumer mentality be penalized?
That doesn't seem fair.
It doesn't does it? In fact, it's downright terrifying that a government official can get away with performing a witch hunt against a dissenting citizen who dared to disagree with Dear Leader. I fully expect to be modded down by other members of the Obama personality cult.
Is it just me or has there been a strong resurgence of libertarianism, most notably of the Ayn Rand type? I understand that there is a reaction against the one-and-a-half party system in the US, but for the love of Christ, do that many people really think that a totally unfettered form of capitalism will really benefit the greatest number of people?
I always figured that most people were in favor of a mixed economy involving some amount of freedoms and some amount of government controls, with the battle being fought along the lines of how much regulation and of what. Myself, I have generally been in favor of less.
Looking at the nutrition information on a package of crackers the other day, I remembered back to a time when food labels didn't have to list the ingredients or nutritional info. If Atlas was trying to make healthy and informed decisions concerning his diet and tried to discern what was in the food he was about to eat, guess what he would do. He'd shrug... But seriously, the labeling of food, while somewhat gameable, is one of those things that benefits a large number of people without an onerous amount of government restriction of business. You know, where the positives outweigh the negatives. Call me crazy, but that seems like a good thing.
As an aside, I am also kind of amazed that people find her books compelling, or even interesting. To be fair, I do acknowledge that her depiction of the protagonists' perseverance and accomplishment could be somewhat inspiring if it weren't completely overwhelmed by impossibly clumsy and self-serving dialog. The words that come out of her characters' mouths couldn't be more contrived and childish if they were in a Saturday morning cartoon. The dialog, obviously meant more for furthering Rand's crackpot philosophy than anything else, consists mainly of the hideous villains spouting some strawman for her virile heroes to demolish. Yawn.
WOW. A content submitter who cares, checks comments, and apologizes for typos?
Where am I and what did you do with my /. ?!
That's scary. The next thing that you know, we will have editors that edit and don't have a huge ax to grind.
Bingo! I'll believe in cloud computing when I can get a reliable and fast enough internet connection.
While we have unlimited data here from the phone company, the quality and speed of the connection has degraded badly in the six years that we have lived here.
What generally happens is that you start noticing your connection dropping sporadically, you call tech support and they "fix" it by throttling you back even further. While the service I have is advertised as 5Mbps, I can only manage about 1100 kbps. If you bitch, they politely remind you that they only guarantee 768kbps.
Speaking freely is un-Islamic.
Treating women with respect is un-Islamic.
Freedom is un-Islamic.
Peace is un-Islamic.
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things you mention were un-Christian.
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things were un-Everything (un-British, un-Hindu, un-African, un-Whatever). That's just the way things were everywhere until fairly recently. Maybe you and the parent should keep the broadbrush in its holster a little longer next time.
...but the fact that the first wheel has been put in motion (competent President)...
Not to burst your bubble, but I think the jury is still out on that one. He hasn't even been sworn into office and his record as a Senator is really quite limited. He may indeed turn out to be competent, and I certainly hope that he does, but you're jumping the gun.
I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.
I take it you were born after the 1984 Reagan-Mondale election.
Actually, I'm old enough to have voted in that election, and I don't remember the worldwide celebration that is happening now.
I get it that everyone wants to bask in the glow, but at some point, reality is going to come crashing in.
I have never seen such hysteria for a candidate in my life. With the type of overwrought messianic expectations that he faces, there is no way to go for Obama but down.
I'm not saying that he deserves it, but when these pie-in-the-sky types realize that he is human like the rest, and that he won't be able to wipe the tear from every eye, his approval rating will take a serious hit.
From Wikipedia:
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a mental disorder. It is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: "The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood." Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder.
I do not think that word means what you think it means... :)
Intelligent [in-tel-i-juhnt] ....
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment
3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence ...
Perhaps you meant to slag "educated" people?
Interesting that you left definition #1 out, having to do with capacity and latency, which is what is more generally meant by intelligence. IQ tests attempt to measure intelligence by evaluating the capacity to learn and the quickness with which one learns.
If the ability to use "good judgment" were what we generally refer to as intelligence, one would have to conclude that Hans Reiser isn't intelligent, that is unless he *wanted* to be somebody's bitch at San Quentin. I think that maybe you're confusing intelligence with wisdom.
Sure, let's all go to their site to watch a flower whose scientific name translates to 'giant misshapen penis' 'bloom' in full 1080p HD...
Why does this sentence make me think of Monica Lewinsky?
Nah, but the combination of an already right leaning supreme court
Now I couldn't decide which was worse, the prospect of more right-leaning justices, or one party having the Congress and the presidency. Either way, it's a crap shoot.
I was so torn that I actually didn't decide until I was in the booth. Hope it turns out well...
It's funny how the socialist tag only seems to apply to handouts to poor people. Somehow, when businesses, farmers, and others have their hands out, it's not socialism--it's investing in America.
Agreed. And yet it seems akin to a couple of guys arguing about why the car won't start. One says, "the car won't start, rogue clowns from outer space must have stolen the spark plugs." The other replies, "that's ridiculous, clowns' big gloves wouldn't allow them to manipulate the spark plugs; they obviously stole the rotor cap."
So--imperfect analogy aside--the second argument might have one more jump of logic to it, but the fact that both are completely out of the realm of reason hardly gives the proponents of the latter theory the right to the type of smugness that one generally sees here pertaining to a loose Creation theory.
It's like citizen A looking down his nose at citizen B because B is "investing" in a Powerball Lottery ticket (~one chance in 150 million) for his retirement, and citizen A congratulating himself for being a shrewd investor he because he's working the Pick Five (~ one chance in 3 million) for his nestegg. The fact that A is fifty times more likely to win, doesn't mean that he isn't going to end up eating cat food in his dotage, just like B.
In any event, I'm not pushing one or the other--the fact is that we don't know and we will never know unless there is some truth to the Creation theory. I'm comfortable enough with what I believe that I don't feel the need to ridicule or discount someone else's opinion just because they believe something different.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1016459&cid=25615041
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1016459&cid=25615041