I'll have to assume that this is what your kids normally want. Most kids I see carrying on in public are doing so because the parent is (rightfully) not purchasing some candy bar/gadget/shiny toy that happened to catch the kids attention in the supermarket checkout line. In such a case, removing the child is not what the kid wants (so you're not caving in) and it is also considerate to the general public. Again, a softly spoken threat has been known to keep a kid in line as well without the need to remove them from the scene.
There are all different ways to handle such a scenario.
"If screaming makes you cave, then screaming is what you will get."
Well, nobody says that you have to cave. If the kid is crying and throwing a tantrum nobody is saying that you do whatever the kid wants. You need to remove the kid from the area (sit with the kid out in the car until they calm down or bring him/her back home) or you need to get the kid to shut up (Ask my mom about which quiet threats work best for shutting up an unruly kid). However, ignoring the child and letting them cry and whine and carry on (so that you don't appear to "cave") is disrespectful and inconsiderate of the rest of the general public that is then being forced to put up with your kid's shenanigans.
"I think a bit of empathy is called for, rather than being offended by any inconveneince you might have to endure."
Sorry, no. It's not the kid's fault that he/she is crying but that's not necessarily what upsets people. People are upset because 9 times out of 10 the parent is ignoring the child that is having a fit rather than:
A: Calming the child down or B: Removing the child from the area
Both of these things are what parents should do in order to show a little consideration for the general public. Your kids needs trump your own, but they don't trump everyone else's.
Golf and Pool are definitely both games. But skydiving (specifically, recreational skydiving) is certainly not a sport. A sport is a competition where one person or team ultimately wins. Sometimes points are scored and tracked, sometimes not. Who wins in skydiving?
I agree that the "visible" war is sometimes necessary in addition to the behind the scenes actions. This was the case with the war in Afghanistan. Given the facts, it was a visible and sensible response to what had happened. It let countries know that if you harbor terrorists then you may become a target as well.
I don't agree that attacking Iraq was in any way sensible or justified (certainly not in the context of the "War on Terror"). It seems to me that in that particular case the visibility of the target country was more important than the ultimate goal.
That being said, it sounds like we're quickly moving away from the original argument/discussion.
"Making the public "feel good" is definitely important when it comes to terrorism"
OK, covert operations, intelligence gathering, etc..., are good, we all agree. Are you saying it's justified that we also start a very visible war (in this case in Iraq), with all of the death and destruction that entails (both against combatants and civilians), in order to make the public "feel better"?
I hope that's not what you're saying because that is cynical in the extreme.
It's called police actions, covert operations, infiltration and intelligence gathering. These would be the most effective strategies. The problem is nobody sees covert actions so you can't demonstrate that you are being proactive. Only a 24 hour a day, imbedded news journalist war gets the public's attention and makes them feel good that you are "doing something" to "fight Terror".
Slashdot Mirror
"Removing the kids is exactly what they want."
I'll have to assume that this is what your kids normally want. Most kids I see carrying on in public are doing so because the parent is (rightfully) not purchasing some candy bar/gadget/shiny toy that happened to catch the kids attention in the supermarket checkout line. In such a case, removing the child is not what the kid wants (so you're not caving in) and it is also considerate to the general public. Again, a softly spoken threat has been known to keep a kid in line as well without the need to remove them from the scene.
There are all different ways to handle such a scenario.
"If screaming makes you cave, then screaming is what you will get."
Well, nobody says that you have to cave. If the kid is crying and throwing a tantrum nobody is saying that you do whatever the kid wants. You need to remove the kid from the area (sit with the kid out in the car until they calm down or bring him/her back home) or you need to get the kid to shut up (Ask my mom about which quiet threats work best for shutting up an unruly kid). However, ignoring the child and letting them cry and whine and carry on (so that you don't appear to "cave") is disrespectful and inconsiderate of the rest of the general public that is then being forced to put up with your kid's shenanigans.
"I think a bit of empathy is called for, rather than being offended by any inconveneince you might have to endure."
Sorry, no. It's not the kid's fault that he/she is crying but that's not necessarily what upsets people. People are upset because 9 times out of 10 the parent is ignoring the child that is having a fit rather than:
A: Calming the child down
or
B: Removing the child from the area
Both of these things are what parents should do in order to show a little consideration for the general public. Your kids needs trump your own, but they don't trump everyone else's.
Apparently not.
Of course it counts. Apple DID(will) go to x86. Apple did NOT license out their OS so that clones could be made. There is a difference.
Golf and Pool are definitely both games. But skydiving (specifically, recreational skydiving) is certainly not a sport. A sport is a competition where one person or team ultimately wins. Sometimes points are scored and tracked, sometimes not. Who wins in skydiving?
where are modpoints when I need them!
I agree that the "visible" war is sometimes necessary in addition to the behind the scenes actions. This was the case with the war in Afghanistan. Given the facts, it was a visible and sensible response to what had happened. It let countries know that if you harbor terrorists then you may become a target as well.
I don't agree that attacking Iraq was in any way sensible or justified (certainly not in the context of the "War on Terror"). It seems to me that in that particular case the visibility of the target country was more important than the ultimate goal.
That being said, it sounds like we're quickly moving away from the original argument/discussion.
"Making the public "feel good" is definitely important when it comes to terrorism"
OK, covert operations, intelligence gathering, etc..., are good, we all agree. Are you saying it's justified that we also start a very visible war (in this case in Iraq), with all of the death and destruction that entails (both against combatants and civilians), in order to make the public "feel better"?
I hope that's not what you're saying because that is cynical in the extreme.
Nice straw man. Where did anyone mention surrendering?
Peace != Surrender
It's called police actions, covert operations, infiltration and intelligence gathering. These would be the most effective strategies. The problem is nobody sees covert actions so you can't demonstrate that you are being proactive. Only a 24 hour a day, imbedded news journalist war gets the public's attention and makes them feel good that you are "doing something" to "fight Terror".
Actually, you can download a version of remote desktop for Win2K from the Microsoft website. I use it all the time when working out of the office.
Siriusly?