Being a good parent is making sure that your child knows how to use the tools you supply them with as well as paying enough attention to know that they can handle it. It also means making sure the battery isn't on empty when you send them into the tunnel. Even bringing up that the battery might run out shows that the idea of actually caring for your child is beyond you. You don't seem to be able to figure out on your own how to make sure that battery doesn't run out while your child is in a play structure.
No, it isn't stretching it at all. People like you just rationalize why 100,000 small abuses don't count as one big one. When you block your child's development at 2,3,4,etc...etc... It is not a stretch to expect them to be developmentally stunted at 35.
That is not the worst suggestion I have heard, and if one cannot afford the extra cell phone bill, is a reasonable solution. Even a card in the kids pocket would work and is what we did before we got him a cell phone. It does introduce greater chance of the busy body who thinks that anything short of putting your kid on a leash like a dog is negligent, and instead of calling the parent, will call the cops. It is a small chance, but the cost of a cell phone is less than the cost of Nintendo DS, and the cost of a pay as you go plan is less than one would spend on food during a day at Disneyland.
That is exactly the words of a crappy parent. Instead of giving the kid a cell phone, your conclusion is to prevent them from growing and gaining an independence. It is parents like you with your 'death by a thousand cuts' style of parenting that has made it common to find 35 year olds still living at home with their parents like they are 13. A 4 year old asking if they can go through the tunnel on their own isn't unreasonable. Letting a child go through the tunnel on their own isn't being 'careless'. Particularly when simply handing them a cell phone means that even if they find an unexpected exit, they can just call you and everything is fine.
Rationalizing that kids don't need cell phones because you can just deny them the chance to explore and grow instead is being a bad parent.
Exactly. More kids need phones than adults. I got my kid his first cell phone at 4. It's a good thing too since on a trip to Disneyland, he found an exit from the Tom Sawyer's caves that my wife and I didn't know about. The fact that I was able to receive a call from him saying "I'm outside and I don't see you." made the difference between a fun family vacation with a memorable story and a horrific trip where we spent a good portion of the time with park security hoping that we will see our child again. Asking what a kid needs a cell phone for makes about as much sense as asking what they need seat belts for.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you also need to keep in mind that what you are talking about is not a black and white issue. Every experience you have in life, including reading this post makes you a different "you". Every time you forget something, which we all do all the time, you are a different "you". So, the "self scar" that you refer to is growing each and every day in each and every one of us. It would just be more shocking to see 5 years of "self scar" occur over night.
No. The rational is exactly the same in the small case as the large. Having access to reference materials is something to deal with when you have no other choice. Reinventing the wheel is not a virtue.
Books are a perfect example of why the whole argument is bogus. I know plenty of avid readers that are complete morons. They think they are smart because they have been told that people who read a lot are smart. They don't get that reading trashy pulp fiction romance novels don't make you smart. The same applies for trashy sci-fi, fantasy, or any other pulp fiction genre.
It starts with the kids. We have multiple generations now that spent their entire childhood being told, "Don't talk to strangers". Those kids grow up, and it is a lesson that sticks with them. That is something that I have gone out of my way to avoid teaching my child. The problem is that if you don't just tell your child that all strangers are out to kidnap and kill them, you do have to start talking to them about how to evaluate who they should be talking to, and who they shouldn't. That means actually being a parent, and most people have abdicated that roll to the public school system where everyone on site has been cleared as "safe to talk to" whether they actually are or are not.
You joke, but what you learn from that is that there are people who actually believe those things. Likely far more people than you think. It is a good thing to understand what other people think, even when they are wrong.
When it comes to driving, the sooner humans are not doing it the better. There will always be distractions. Even the lack of external distractions just creates internal ones.
It would be from the death of something else. They are suggesting growing it. As in it is alive, and then gets killed to make the leather. Your comment points out one of the great hypocrisies of the 'moral' vegan. They claim that killing is bad, but happily do it if the life is different enough from them that they can rationalize that it 'doesn't count'.
Given that the cost of electricity can very wildly based on where in the country you are, the true cost to own is going to be better than $1000 for some and far worse for others.
I would still like to see cars with a standard 'power pack'. one where you can drop out the battery pack and replace it with a gas generator to run he electric motor. Or, you can drop out the electric generator and push in a natural gas generator, or a fuel cell. Make the car electric so that the only reliance on fuel type is whether the fuel source can be converted to electricity in a standard form factor. Heck, even better is to add a standard connector on the back of the vehicle so that you can attach a small 'power pack' trailer. Going on a long trip? Hook the gas generator trailer to the back of the vehicle, and get 400 miles between fill ups.
My first expectation would be that it covers implementation details, thus allowing the person under the NDA to write specs but not code. This would allow clean room drivers to be written without revealing the internals of the chips to everyone in the world.
Put the cool side on the North facing side of the roof, and the hot side inside the attic. Even in a properly ventilated attic, it is almost always noticeably hotter in the attic than outside. The only question would be whether it was cost effective.
They either need to keep the servers up indefinitely, or release a patch that removes activation. Anything less is a repossession of a purchased product. The problem for them is that they won't want to run the activation servers forever, but if they were to release a patch that removed activation, XP market share would skyrocket. What they will likely need to do if they want to stay legit is to keep the activation servers up long enough that the bulk of modern software requires features not available in XP. Once that happens, they can un-DRM XP without having a huge influx of new users.
The only problem with the headline is that the editor didn't realise that most people don't know what the words they use means. In essesnce the editor used a $5 word where a $2 dollar word would work. He likely assumed that because people use the word "dear" all of the time, that they would know what the word means, or at least know that it means SOMETHING.
The bigger question is... What do all of the people complaining about the word, who have used the word most of their lives, think it means?
Businesses taking that route are shooting themselves in the foot. 99% of all end user business software that isn't Office is forms and workflow. Forms based software works excellent in HTML, and the workflow separates out to run on the server in a natural dividing line. The cost of doing your workflow on the server and the forms on the client is not going to be more expensive than trying to do everything in.NET on the client.
If not having to worry about compatibility is your goal, locking yourself down to a single vendors OS on a platform on which the vendor is notorious for breaking compatibility is a terrible way to attempt it. Particularly when there are cross vendor, standards based solutions that will still let you use your current developer resources on the server side of the applications.
Too be fair to the "YODL" (Year Of Desktop Linux) crowd, as tablets gain more traction, capabilities, and more people become aware that it is trivial to add a keyboard to them, it isn't inconceivable that we will see a YODL in the not too distant future. It may just arrive via the distribution known as Android and it may be a very portable Desktop.
Of course there will be much quibbling over what exactly constitutes "Desktop".
While I would define it more as 'valuable', or 'having a high value', it certainly means that in modern American English. It isn't that the word has changed meaning. It is that people mimic words that others have said without understanding the meaning. (Another good example is the word "Sorry".) When you start a letter "Dear Nancy", a wedding starts with "Dearly Beloved", or you just call your wife "Dear", the word means person "of great value".
As soon as I saw the word Dear in the title, I knew that people would come out of the woodwork complaining about it because they didn't know the definition of a word they have used most of their lives. The real question is... What do THEY think the word "Dear" means?
Slashdot Mirror
Being a good parent is making sure that your child knows how to use the tools you supply them with as well as paying enough attention to know that they can handle it. It also means making sure the battery isn't on empty when you send them into the tunnel. Even bringing up that the battery might run out shows that the idea of actually caring for your child is beyond you. You don't seem to be able to figure out on your own how to make sure that battery doesn't run out while your child is in a play structure.
No, it isn't stretching it at all. People like you just rationalize why 100,000 small abuses don't count as one big one. When you block your child's development at 2,3,4,etc...etc... It is not a stretch to expect them to be developmentally stunted at 35.
That is not the worst suggestion I have heard, and if one cannot afford the extra cell phone bill, is a reasonable solution. Even a card in the kids pocket would work and is what we did before we got him a cell phone. It does introduce greater chance of the busy body who thinks that anything short of putting your kid on a leash like a dog is negligent, and instead of calling the parent, will call the cops. It is a small chance, but the cost of a cell phone is less than the cost of Nintendo DS, and the cost of a pay as you go plan is less than one would spend on food during a day at Disneyland.
That is exactly the words of a crappy parent. Instead of giving the kid a cell phone, your conclusion is to prevent them from growing and gaining an independence. It is parents like you with your 'death by a thousand cuts' style of parenting that has made it common to find 35 year olds still living at home with their parents like they are 13. A 4 year old asking if they can go through the tunnel on their own isn't unreasonable. Letting a child go through the tunnel on their own isn't being 'careless'. Particularly when simply handing them a cell phone means that even if they find an unexpected exit, they can just call you and everything is fine.
Rationalizing that kids don't need cell phones because you can just deny them the chance to explore and grow instead is being a bad parent.
Exactly. More kids need phones than adults. I got my kid his first cell phone at 4. It's a good thing too since on a trip to Disneyland, he found an exit from the Tom Sawyer's caves that my wife and I didn't know about. The fact that I was able to receive a call from him saying "I'm outside and I don't see you." made the difference between a fun family vacation with a memorable story and a horrific trip where we spent a good portion of the time with park security hoping that we will see our child again. Asking what a kid needs a cell phone for makes about as much sense as asking what they need seat belts for.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you also need to keep in mind that what you are talking about is not a black and white issue. Every experience you have in life, including reading this post makes you a different "you". Every time you forget something, which we all do all the time, you are a different "you". So, the "self scar" that you refer to is growing each and every day in each and every one of us. It would just be more shocking to see 5 years of "self scar" occur over night.
No. The rational is exactly the same in the small case as the large. Having access to reference materials is something to deal with when you have no other choice. Reinventing the wheel is not a virtue.
Books are a perfect example of why the whole argument is bogus. I know plenty of avid readers that are complete morons. They think they are smart because they have been told that people who read a lot are smart. They don't get that reading trashy pulp fiction romance novels don't make you smart. The same applies for trashy sci-fi, fantasy, or any other pulp fiction genre.
I don't know how you poop, but I would think that your hands wouldn't come into play until the very end when the phone is safely back in your pocket.
It starts with the kids. We have multiple generations now that spent their entire childhood being told, "Don't talk to strangers". Those kids grow up, and it is a lesson that sticks with them. That is something that I have gone out of my way to avoid teaching my child. The problem is that if you don't just tell your child that all strangers are out to kidnap and kill them, you do have to start talking to them about how to evaluate who they should be talking to, and who they shouldn't. That means actually being a parent, and most people have abdicated that roll to the public school system where everyone on site has been cleared as "safe to talk to" whether they actually are or are not.
Sounds like a reason for shutting down all libraries and schools. I think I'll pass on that one.
I'm going to say that this being considered obese has far more to do with it than angery birds or sedentary jobs.
You joke, but what you learn from that is that there are people who actually believe those things. Likely far more people than you think. It is a good thing to understand what other people think, even when they are wrong.
When it comes to driving, the sooner humans are not doing it the better. There will always be distractions. Even the lack of external distractions just creates internal ones.
It would be from the death of something else. They are suggesting growing it. As in it is alive, and then gets killed to make the leather. Your comment points out one of the great hypocrisies of the 'moral' vegan. They claim that killing is bad, but happily do it if the life is different enough from them that they can rationalize that it 'doesn't count'.
Given that the cost of electricity can very wildly based on where in the country you are, the true cost to own is going to be better than $1000 for some and far worse for others.
I would still like to see cars with a standard 'power pack'. one where you can drop out the battery pack and replace it with a gas generator to run he electric motor. Or, you can drop out the electric generator and push in a natural gas generator, or a fuel cell. Make the car electric so that the only reliance on fuel type is whether the fuel source can be converted to electricity in a standard form factor. Heck, even better is to add a standard connector on the back of the vehicle so that you can attach a small 'power pack' trailer. Going on a long trip? Hook the gas generator trailer to the back of the vehicle, and get 400 miles between fill ups.
My first expectation would be that it covers implementation details, thus allowing the person under the NDA to write specs but not code. This would allow clean room drivers to be written without revealing the internals of the chips to everyone in the world.
Put the cool side on the North facing side of the roof, and the hot side inside the attic. Even in a properly ventilated attic, it is almost always noticeably hotter in the attic than outside. The only question would be whether it was cost effective.
They either need to keep the servers up indefinitely, or release a patch that removes activation. Anything less is a repossession of a purchased product. The problem for them is that they won't want to run the activation servers forever, but if they were to release a patch that removed activation, XP market share would skyrocket. What they will likely need to do if they want to stay legit is to keep the activation servers up long enough that the bulk of modern software requires features not available in XP. Once that happens, they can un-DRM XP without having a huge influx of new users.
The only problem with the headline is that the editor didn't realise that most people don't know what the words they use means. In essesnce the editor used a $5 word where a $2 dollar word would work. He likely assumed that because people use the word "dear" all of the time, that they would know what the word means, or at least know that it means SOMETHING.
The bigger question is... What do all of the people complaining about the word, who have used the word most of their lives, think it means?
Businesses taking that route are shooting themselves in the foot. 99% of all end user business software that isn't Office is forms and workflow. Forms based software works excellent in HTML, and the workflow separates out to run on the server in a natural dividing line. The cost of doing your workflow on the server and the forms on the client is not going to be more expensive than trying to do everything in .NET on the client.
If not having to worry about compatibility is your goal, locking yourself down to a single vendors OS on a platform on which the vendor is notorious for breaking compatibility is a terrible way to attempt it. Particularly when there are cross vendor, standards based solutions that will still let you use your current developer resources on the server side of the applications.
The real question is... What do the people complaining about the word think the word means?
Too be fair to the "YODL" (Year Of Desktop Linux) crowd, as tablets gain more traction, capabilities, and more people become aware that it is trivial to add a keyboard to them, it isn't inconceivable that we will see a YODL in the not too distant future. It may just arrive via the distribution known as Android and it may be a very portable Desktop.
Of course there will be much quibbling over what exactly constitutes "Desktop".
While I would define it more as 'valuable', or 'having a high value', it certainly means that in modern American English. It isn't that the word has changed meaning. It is that people mimic words that others have said without understanding the meaning. (Another good example is the word "Sorry".) When you start a letter "Dear Nancy", a wedding starts with "Dearly Beloved", or you just call your wife "Dear", the word means person "of great value".
As soon as I saw the word Dear in the title, I knew that people would come out of the woodwork complaining about it because they didn't know the definition of a word they have used most of their lives. The real question is... What do THEY think the word "Dear" means?
Seems to me that they need the first person that is leaving anyway to file a sexual harassment complaint.
I'm an actual fan of Lotus Notes/Domino, and I will agree that that is definitely one of it's warts.