Nice try... but wage slaves are able to support themselves (albeit tenuously). I was thinking more of the starving and chronically unemployed -- people who produce absolutely nothing. I'm not about to start sharing the wealth... that is, unless they can produce a good or service in trade for it.
Communism is for the weaklings who can't stand on their own. I say let 'em starve, the earth is too crowded. People who can't even support themselves shouldn't continue to breed.
Nike lost a prolific court case in which they argued that they had the constitutional first amendment right to lie in their advertisements (freedom of speech). The supreme court said no.
You may want to double-check your grasp of the law here.
You don't get how things work. Cops ask citizens if they can look around inside their cars all of the time. Basically, if you give a cop permission, you sacrifice your 4th amendment rights. That might not be the ideal situation but it's how things work.
"Bad" guy seems a little subjective considering the wide variety of crimes someone might be held at gunpoint for. Can we stick with the more neutral "criminal?" This isn't like, G.I. Joe vs. Cobra here. Things are a little more complicated in the real world. Sometimes laws are unjust...
Just because you understand what each word means on its own doesn't mean that you understand the significance of the statement as a whole. Personally, I'm capable of admitting when I don't know what a sentence implies. Observe: I'm incapable of knowing the significance of the statement "it is shielded to limit electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions across the whole chip" because I'm not aware of how shielded against electromagnetic interference any processor is. I'm also not aware of whether or not electromagnetic interference is a bigger problem in quantum computing than traditional computing. Without knowing how shielded any other processor is to interference in order to draw a comparison, or even knowing whether or not shielding is more or less important in quantum computing, a quantification of this chip's shielding is meaningless to me, and anyone else who doesn't know those things.
Do you know those things, without being a hardware engineer? Or do you just enjoy pretending to know more than you do? Or maybe you thought that when I was using some humor and said "I don't even understand what anything you just said means, man," that I literally meant that I didn't know what a milliKelvin or a nanotesla was. Not so. I just don't understand the significance of those measurements in this context.
You should waste your time on someone who will actually get riled up by base and trite insults, random internet person. Go troll/b/ or something.
Who said I didn't understand the concept of absolute zero? You're putting words in my mouth, again. Understanding absolute zero is one thing; understanding the technical significance of "it operates at 10 milliKelvins" is something else entirely.
Utilizing quantum entanglement to transfer information over great distances, instantly, is obviously a genius idea. But that article summary means nothing to anyone who isn't a hardware engineer. Whoever wrote it should have kept a more general audience in mind, and left the technical details in the article itself for people actually interested enough to RTFA.
You must have misunderstood me. I'm not a fan of the "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" doctrine. I wasn't trying to be condescending... those are things that I would actually do. The problem here, though, is that living in someone else's building is sort of a give-and-take. What if they have to come into your apartment to fix some leaky plumbing, or they want to check your fire alarms to make sure that you don't damage their property with uncontrolled fires?
The current doctrine works fine -- they give you a day's notice, you straighten the place up, and then they come in and do their maintenance. If you don't want house guests seeing your nude photos then don't leave them lying around; if you want to leave them lying around anyway, then buy your own damn property.
I used examples of illegal activity because those are the only things one would be truly forced to hide. There's no law saying that you can't hang full-nude photographs of your wife in the living room over the couch, so knock yourself out.
You might think it's unreasonable for a landlord to enter your apartment, but I think it's unreasonable for someone who owns a building and rents it out to be totally denied access to that building. There are a lot of legitimate reasons as to why a landlord might want to enter an apartment -- when I'm a landlord, I don't want that right stripped from me. I want to be able to maintain my property.
I don't think that saying "I am uneducated in the field of hardware engineering" is exactly the same as saying "math is hard." Get off of your pedestal; the point is that if the average person doesn't understand the specs, then it isn't going to have widespread commercial appeal. Which, if you recall, was the question posed to us in the summary.
Exactly -- they are required to notify you. That way you can cancel any drug-fueled homosexual orgies you may have been planning, hide your growing marijuana plants, clean the cocaine off of the dining room table, and so forth. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
you need to spend the price of an Macintosh on the hardware. And if you're going to do that, you might as well get a Mac in the first place.
Says you. I like it when my PC breaks and I have to work on it. I also like upgrading it piece-by-piece, knowing what each part does, and having about 50 million cables plugged into the back of it instead of just two.
I mean, maybe a Macintosh runs perfectly, all of the time, out of the box... but then what the hell would I do with it?
Also, for the love of God, don't buy your PC's from OEMs like Dell or Gateway. Just buy all of the parts separately on Newegg.com and then assemble them yourself. They're all individually warrantied by the manufacturer, and you'll save a boatload of money.
Ever assembled a Macintosh yourself? Didn't think so. That's sort of like paying someone else to do the work for you -- not always a bad decision, but always more expensive.
It might be valuable as a specialized research tool, or in industry as a component of production, but it isn't consumer-viable. It will never be a "final product" (as counted in the GDP), at least not in this decade.
Also, no, I didn't understand any of that stuff either, haha. I'm a student of economics and a consumer, not a hardware engineer.
It is particularly good at pattern recognition, it operates at 10 milliKelvin, and it is shielded to limit electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions across the whole chip. Could this be the first successful commercial quantum computer?
Based on that description? No. I don't even know what the fuck any of that stuff you just said even means, man (except for the bit about pattern recognition, which was an unquantified statement anyway and about as useful as "the computer is fast"). Speak in a language I can understand, like, the average framerate it can run Crysis at.
Awesome! If we could kill everyone in the second and third world for pennies on the dollar, imagine how cheap real estate would get to be! Then we could buy, buy, buy and all get rich! Yeah!
The days of the battleship aren't over. It's just that now, battleships are used for shore bombardment or long-range indirect fire. The primary offensive weapon of any well-balanced fleet today isn't it's battleship, it's it's aircraft carrier. However, the railgun the navy is looking at is capable of firing rounds accurately from miles away (implicit memory and I don't feel like citing sources at 2:49am); it'd be useful for, say, taking out the enemy aircraft carrier at a distance so your torpedo bombers could attack the enemy ships without dogfighting at the same time, probably? In any case the battleship is here to stay.
Seriously... if you think that the game is so boring that it isn't worth actually playing through, because it isn't fun enough to, then don't support it with your monthly subscription! Buy a game from a company that uses a different business model, one that takes less advantage of the consumer, like Company of Heroes, Spore, or Fallout 3.
I hate to go all like Wikipedia on you but... "Citation Needed." I'm interested in the vote you're talking about but you haven't given enough information for me to find it easily.
Nowhere in the link, however, it didn't mention anything regarding "spanking"
It was left open-ended deliberately; yelling and intimidating a child is a form of power assertion, just like slapping a child in the face is also a form of power assertion.
For every book you can name that states, "one should not put their children into the corner" I can find on that states the opposite. How does one navigate through the horse manure of uneducated, childless, armchair handbooks?
Well the first thing you should do is avoid the "self-help" section at Barnes & Nobles like the plague. Not all books are equal -- it is filled with books written by total quacks who just state this-or-that to be true without any research or citations backing it up -- they just spew bullshit into a vacuum and people will pick it up and read it and believe it just because the asshole has a Ph.D.
Stick to peer-reviewed articles or academic textbooks with plenty of citations and the quality of information you get will be greater.
Taking a class on child development is a good call for any future parent, not just because of the various insights into intrinsic/extrinsic motivation in children, but also because of things that are presented such as Piaget's theory of child development, in which he defined four "stages" of childhood, and enumerated what cognitive tasks children in each stage were capable of. This can be useful for figuring out what tasks a child of a certain age is physically and mentally capable of performing.
I only got spanked once by my Father, when I was 3, and I can hardly blame him -- I had slapped him in the face for pushing one of my meticulously-balanced plastic army men into a bucket of water. Withdrawal of privileges like using the computer or using the car was my most common form of punishment, but as with you there were never any mind-games associated with it, just swift discipline followed by affirmations of love. I suppose that withdrawal of privileges itself is a form of power assertion, but at least the message there is "if you break the rules, you will lose your freedom," which is a bit closer to how society works than "if you break the rules, I will beat you within an inch of your life."
You will probably make it through the process without too many bumps in the road as long as you don't do over-the-top things like lock your child in the closet with only bread and water to eat and lash them with your belt repeatedly. Also, I suppose that nobody has said that using a combination of power assertion and induction is impossible (now that I give it some thought, combination power assertion/induction probably best describes the parenting style of my Father).
Above all else, just keep in mind that you want to give your children reasons for their behavior that they can internalize. They should restrain themselves from beating their younger siblings or weaker kids at school out of compassion and empathy instead of just fear of physical pain. Similarly, it would be nice if they didn't trash the family household with wild parties out of appreciation and respect for their own home, instead of just the fear of physical punishment and being forced to live with their grandparents (an indirect form of love withdrawal).
If the child is not intrinsically motivated to behave, then once the threat of physical pain no longer looms over them (I.E., in adulthood), they'll respond by doing the things you were keeping them from doing in childhood, like bullying their subordinates or family members, or inviting over rowdy friends who break all of their stuff.
I remember what a pain Jet addiction could be in Fallout 2. In the short-term it increased your agility, but if you didn't continue to take Jet at least a couple of times a day after that first hit, your character would go through terrible withdrawals that would keep him up at night in cold sweats and play "spin the dials" on all of his primary attributes at random. It was pretty salient and realistic -- do hard drugs and they will wreak havoc on your body.
Of course, a bottle of rotgut and a shot of "Psycho" never really hurt anyone that badly... in fact "Psycho" saved my characters from certain death innumerable times.
I don't know what the situation is for Fallout 3, but in Fallout 2 you had the option of murdering every child you ever saw in the game, which prompted a "European version" of the game that had no children whatsoever. Maybe that's the issue? Total speculation (I didn't RTFA) but I think that the whole child-killing thing was probably the most controversial part of Fallout 2.
The effects of that were represented fairly accurately in the game as well -- killing even a single child would result in your character getting the karma tag "child killer," and wanted posters of the character popping up in every major city. After a short time, the character is eventually subjected to random encounters vs. bounty hunters on the overland map, who gradually become more powerful over time. Eventually you had to contend with bounty hunters who had suits of power armor and fully-automatic mini-guns.
I'm not going to get all "PC" on you, I'm actually going to bust out some child psychology.
In research on parenting behavior, methods of control have commonly been divided into three categories. The first type of control is the use of power by parents. Such techniques, in which parents attempt to force or pressure their children to behave in certain ways, are associated with children who are less socially competent. When parents use power to control their children, the children are likely to see their choices as governed by external forces. They do as they are told but only as long as there is a power to make them. They may become passive or rebellious.
A second type of control is love withdrawal, in which parents show disapproval for behavior that displeases them. It may include ignoring, shaming, or isolating the child. The use of love withdrawal shows mixed results in its effects on children; some studies have found it to be acceptable, whereas other studies have found it resulted in dependent or depressed children. New research on parents' use of psychological control may have identified what parts of love withdrawal are especially toxic. When parents use guilt or manipulation to control their children, the result is anxiety and depression for children. In contrast, when parents use reasonable monitoring and negotiated control of behavior, children are less likely to get in trouble.
The third type of control is induction. Induction includes reasoning with children and helping them understand the effects of their behavior on others. For example, a parent might say, "When you yell at your sister, she feels very afraid and sad. She feels that you don't like her." Induction is the type of control that is most likely to result in socially competent children.
There are also clear benefits for a child's moral development when a parent uses induction because induction teaches children to think about the effect of their behavior on others. Induction both activates and cultivates the child's own logic and compassion. Children raised with induction are more likely to have internalized standards for behavior, better developed moral sensitivities, and less vulnerability to external influence.
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1244/Parenting-Education-Content-Parenting-Education.html -- this isn't exactly a primary source but it rehashes things I learned in a "Human Development" class; I just don't feel like getting super academic on you and researching/citing the primary sources. If you really care about your children enough to give them the best childhood possible, you'll do that on your own anyway -- of course, maybe you won't, after all, you said it yourself, "I just don't care." Great attitude!
You don't know of a better way to parent a child because you were never shown how, but please, for the sake of your children, research parenting methods before having any. Don't do it the way your Father did just because that's all you know -- it is well known that power assertion is one of the least effective means for instilling intrinsic motivation into a child. What you want is for the child to internalize the reasons for their behavior, so that when they move out at 18 years old they continue to truly believe in and follow the lessons you taught them, instead of just throwing them to the wind 'cause they are out from under the harsh glare of mean ol' Dad.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try ... but wage slaves are able to support themselves (albeit tenuously). I was thinking more of the starving and chronically unemployed -- people who produce absolutely nothing. I'm not about to start sharing the wealth ... that is, unless they can produce a good or service in trade for it.
Many people carry their groceries home with them on long walks. I actually request a bag for my milk jug.
Communism is for the weaklings who can't stand on their own. I say let 'em starve, the earth is too crowded. People who can't even support themselves shouldn't continue to breed.
and while sexy babes may hang out on the internet you will almost never run across on, instead it will be some trucker getting his kicks.
The trick is to flirt with sexy babes who live in your town, so you can cut right to meeting them in person.
Nike lost a prolific court case in which they argued that they had the constitutional first amendment right to lie in their advertisements (freedom of speech). The supreme court said no.
You may want to double-check your grasp of the law here.
You don't get how things work. Cops ask citizens if they can look around inside their cars all of the time. Basically, if you give a cop permission, you sacrifice your 4th amendment rights. That might not be the ideal situation but it's how things work.
"Bad" guy seems a little subjective considering the wide variety of crimes someone might be held at gunpoint for. Can we stick with the more neutral "criminal?" This isn't like, G.I. Joe vs. Cobra here. Things are a little more complicated in the real world. Sometimes laws are unjust ...
Just because you understand what each word means on its own doesn't mean that you understand the significance of the statement as a whole. Personally, I'm capable of admitting when I don't know what a sentence implies. Observe: I'm incapable of knowing the significance of the statement "it is shielded to limit electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions across the whole chip" because I'm not aware of how shielded against electromagnetic interference any processor is. I'm also not aware of whether or not electromagnetic interference is a bigger problem in quantum computing than traditional computing. Without knowing how shielded any other processor is to interference in order to draw a comparison, or even knowing whether or not shielding is more or less important in quantum computing, a quantification of this chip's shielding is meaningless to me, and anyone else who doesn't know those things.
Do you know those things, without being a hardware engineer? Or do you just enjoy pretending to know more than you do? Or maybe you thought that when I was using some humor and said "I don't even understand what anything you just said means, man," that I literally meant that I didn't know what a milliKelvin or a nanotesla was. Not so. I just don't understand the significance of those measurements in this context.
You should waste your time on someone who will actually get riled up by base and trite insults, random internet person. Go troll /b/ or something.
Who said I didn't understand the concept of absolute zero? You're putting words in my mouth, again. Understanding absolute zero is one thing; understanding the technical significance of "it operates at 10 milliKelvins" is something else entirely.
Utilizing quantum entanglement to transfer information over great distances, instantly, is obviously a genius idea. But that article summary means nothing to anyone who isn't a hardware engineer. Whoever wrote it should have kept a more general audience in mind, and left the technical details in the article itself for people actually interested enough to RTFA.
Stop being pretentious, slashdotter.
Wait, I must be new here.
True. Rifling through the DB was totally uncalled for and unprofessional.
You must have misunderstood me. I'm not a fan of the "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" doctrine. I wasn't trying to be condescending ... those are things that I would actually do. The problem here, though, is that living in someone else's building is sort of a give-and-take. What if they have to come into your apartment to fix some leaky plumbing, or they want to check your fire alarms to make sure that you don't damage their property with uncontrolled fires?
The current doctrine works fine -- they give you a day's notice, you straighten the place up, and then they come in and do their maintenance. If you don't want house guests seeing your nude photos then don't leave them lying around; if you want to leave them lying around anyway, then buy your own damn property.
I used examples of illegal activity because those are the only things one would be truly forced to hide. There's no law saying that you can't hang full-nude photographs of your wife in the living room over the couch, so knock yourself out.
You might think it's unreasonable for a landlord to enter your apartment, but I think it's unreasonable for someone who owns a building and rents it out to be totally denied access to that building. There are a lot of legitimate reasons as to why a landlord might want to enter an apartment -- when I'm a landlord, I don't want that right stripped from me. I want to be able to maintain my property.
I don't think that saying "I am uneducated in the field of hardware engineering" is exactly the same as saying "math is hard." Get off of your pedestal; the point is that if the average person doesn't understand the specs, then it isn't going to have widespread commercial appeal. Which, if you recall, was the question posed to us in the summary.
Exactly -- they are required to notify you. That way you can cancel any drug-fueled homosexual orgies you may have been planning, hide your growing marijuana plants, clean the cocaine off of the dining room table, and so forth. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
you need to spend the price of an Macintosh on the hardware. And if you're going to do that, you might as well get a Mac in the first place.
Says you. I like it when my PC breaks and I have to work on it. I also like upgrading it piece-by-piece, knowing what each part does, and having about 50 million cables plugged into the back of it instead of just two.
I mean, maybe a Macintosh runs perfectly, all of the time, out of the box ... but then what the hell would I do with it?
Also, for the love of God, don't buy your PC's from OEMs like Dell or Gateway. Just buy all of the parts separately on Newegg.com and then assemble them yourself. They're all individually warrantied by the manufacturer, and you'll save a boatload of money.
Ever assembled a Macintosh yourself? Didn't think so. That's sort of like paying someone else to do the work for you -- not always a bad decision, but always more expensive.
It might be valuable as a specialized research tool, or in industry as a component of production, but it isn't consumer-viable. It will never be a "final product" (as counted in the GDP), at least not in this decade.
Also, no, I didn't understand any of that stuff either, haha. I'm a student of economics and a consumer, not a hardware engineer.
It is particularly good at pattern recognition, it operates at 10 milliKelvin, and it is shielded to limit electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions across the whole chip. Could this be the first successful commercial quantum computer?
Based on that description? No. I don't even know what the fuck any of that stuff you just said even means, man (except for the bit about pattern recognition, which was an unquantified statement anyway and about as useful as "the computer is fast"). Speak in a language I can understand, like, the average framerate it can run Crysis at.
Awesome! If we could kill everyone in the second and third world for pennies on the dollar, imagine how cheap real estate would get to be! Then we could buy, buy, buy and all get rich! Yeah!
The days of the battleship aren't over. It's just that now, battleships are used for shore bombardment or long-range indirect fire. The primary offensive weapon of any well-balanced fleet today isn't it's battleship, it's it's aircraft carrier. However, the railgun the navy is looking at is capable of firing rounds accurately from miles away (implicit memory and I don't feel like citing sources at 2:49am); it'd be useful for, say, taking out the enemy aircraft carrier at a distance so your torpedo bombers could attack the enemy ships without dogfighting at the same time, probably? In any case the battleship is here to stay.
Seriously ... if you think that the game is so boring that it isn't worth actually playing through, because it isn't fun enough to, then don't support it with your monthly subscription! Buy a game from a company that uses a different business model, one that takes less advantage of the consumer, like Company of Heroes, Spore, or Fallout 3.
I hate to go all like Wikipedia on you but ... "Citation Needed." I'm interested in the vote you're talking about but you haven't given enough information for me to find it easily.
Nowhere in the link, however, it didn't mention anything regarding "spanking"
It was left open-ended deliberately; yelling and intimidating a child is a form of power assertion, just like slapping a child in the face is also a form of power assertion.
For every book you can name that states, "one should not put their children into the corner" I can find on that states the opposite. How does one navigate through the horse manure of uneducated, childless, armchair handbooks?
Well the first thing you should do is avoid the "self-help" section at Barnes & Nobles like the plague. Not all books are equal -- it is filled with books written by total quacks who just state this-or-that to be true without any research or citations backing it up -- they just spew bullshit into a vacuum and people will pick it up and read it and believe it just because the asshole has a Ph.D.
Stick to peer-reviewed articles or academic textbooks with plenty of citations and the quality of information you get will be greater.
Taking a class on child development is a good call for any future parent, not just because of the various insights into intrinsic/extrinsic motivation in children, but also because of things that are presented such as Piaget's theory of child development, in which he defined four "stages" of childhood, and enumerated what cognitive tasks children in each stage were capable of. This can be useful for figuring out what tasks a child of a certain age is physically and mentally capable of performing.
I only got spanked once by my Father, when I was 3, and I can hardly blame him -- I had slapped him in the face for pushing one of my meticulously-balanced plastic army men into a bucket of water. Withdrawal of privileges like using the computer or using the car was my most common form of punishment, but as with you there were never any mind-games associated with it, just swift discipline followed by affirmations of love. I suppose that withdrawal of privileges itself is a form of power assertion, but at least the message there is "if you break the rules, you will lose your freedom," which is a bit closer to how society works than "if you break the rules, I will beat you within an inch of your life."
You will probably make it through the process without too many bumps in the road as long as you don't do over-the-top things like lock your child in the closet with only bread and water to eat and lash them with your belt repeatedly. Also, I suppose that nobody has said that using a combination of power assertion and induction is impossible (now that I give it some thought, combination power assertion/induction probably best describes the parenting style of my Father).
Above all else, just keep in mind that you want to give your children reasons for their behavior that they can internalize. They should restrain themselves from beating their younger siblings or weaker kids at school out of compassion and empathy instead of just fear of physical pain. Similarly, it would be nice if they didn't trash the family household with wild parties out of appreciation and respect for their own home, instead of just the fear of physical punishment and being forced to live with their grandparents (an indirect form of love withdrawal).
If the child is not intrinsically motivated to behave, then once the threat of physical pain no longer looms over them (I.E., in adulthood), they'll respond by doing the things you were keeping them from doing in childhood, like bullying their subordinates or family members, or inviting over rowdy friends who break all of their stuff.
Oh, God no. If I end up having to raise kids before I am 30, please find me and put me out of my misery. With a shotgun.
I remember what a pain Jet addiction could be in Fallout 2. In the short-term it increased your agility, but if you didn't continue to take Jet at least a couple of times a day after that first hit, your character would go through terrible withdrawals that would keep him up at night in cold sweats and play "spin the dials" on all of his primary attributes at random. It was pretty salient and realistic -- do hard drugs and they will wreak havoc on your body.
Of course, a bottle of rotgut and a shot of "Psycho" never really hurt anyone that badly ... in fact "Psycho" saved my characters from certain death innumerable times.
I don't know what the situation is for Fallout 3, but in Fallout 2 you had the option of murdering every child you ever saw in the game, which prompted a "European version" of the game that had no children whatsoever. Maybe that's the issue? Total speculation (I didn't RTFA) but I think that the whole child-killing thing was probably the most controversial part of Fallout 2.
The effects of that were represented fairly accurately in the game as well -- killing even a single child would result in your character getting the karma tag "child killer," and wanted posters of the character popping up in every major city. After a short time, the character is eventually subjected to random encounters vs. bounty hunters on the overland map, who gradually become more powerful over time. Eventually you had to contend with bounty hunters who had suits of power armor and fully-automatic mini-guns.
I'm not going to get all "PC" on you, I'm actually going to bust out some child psychology.
In research on parenting behavior, methods of control have commonly been divided into three categories. The first type of control is the use of power by parents. Such techniques, in which parents attempt to force or pressure their children to behave in certain ways, are associated with children who are less socially competent. When parents use power to control their children, the children are likely to see their choices as governed by external forces. They do as they are told but only as long as there is a power to make them. They may become passive or rebellious.
A second type of control is love withdrawal, in which parents show disapproval for behavior that displeases them. It may include ignoring, shaming, or isolating the child. The use of love withdrawal shows mixed results in its effects on children; some studies have found it to be acceptable, whereas other studies have found it resulted in dependent or depressed children. New research on parents' use of psychological control may have identified what parts of love withdrawal are especially toxic. When parents use guilt or manipulation to control their children, the result is anxiety and depression for children. In contrast, when parents use reasonable monitoring and negotiated control of behavior, children are less likely to get in trouble.
The third type of control is induction. Induction includes reasoning with children and helping them understand the effects of their behavior on others. For example, a parent might say, "When you yell at your sister, she feels very afraid and sad. She feels that you don't like her." Induction is the type of control that is most likely to result in socially competent children.
There are also clear benefits for a child's moral development when a parent uses induction because induction teaches children to think about the effect of their behavior on others. Induction both activates and cultivates the child's own logic and compassion. Children raised with induction are more likely to have internalized standards for behavior, better developed moral sensitivities, and less vulnerability to external influence.
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1244/Parenting-Education-Content-Parenting-Education.html -- this isn't exactly a primary source but it rehashes things I learned in a "Human Development" class; I just don't feel like getting super academic on you and researching/citing the primary sources. If you really care about your children enough to give them the best childhood possible, you'll do that on your own anyway -- of course, maybe you won't, after all, you said it yourself, "I just don't care." Great attitude!
You don't know of a better way to parent a child because you were never shown how, but please, for the sake of your children, research parenting methods before having any. Don't do it the way your Father did just because that's all you know -- it is well known that power assertion is one of the least effective means for instilling intrinsic motivation into a child. What you want is for the child to internalize the reasons for their behavior, so that when they move out at 18 years old they continue to truly believe in and follow the lessons you taught them, instead of just throwing them to the wind 'cause they are out from under the harsh glare of mean ol' Dad.
If you can defend against 100% of your opponent's shots, eventually they will score against themselves enough times to make you the winner.