Not even in the same league. If smoker statistics were corrected, the world would become a worse place. As it is, I have only ever met one smoker who kept their butts, put them in a special pocket ashtray and disposed of them sensibly. Until that is the norm I'd rather it be prohibitive for smokers to 'enjoy' their habit. Bring back the pipe I say, or don't smoke at all.
I gave reasons that could have come out of my psyche lecturers mouths (I'm "studying" education to become a teacher.) I then added my own thoughts to that sentiment which brought the reasons for children's privacy back to your own conclusions. Needless to say I disagree with my lecturers a lot.
My parents raised 6 children. 5 have stable lives, are sensible, down to earth. 1 is studying and taxi driving. 4 are married and 2 have children. So far so good.
1 is an alcoholic/social drug user, 1 is hanging around with drugos though no evidence of use. The 4 oldest were all raised effectively the same way, the youngest was raised with a lot more leniency. 2 are completely unmotivated to do things beyond their interests, 1 of which hangs around with drugos (the youngest).
So you have three which have glaring flaws, 3 effectively successful. Of the 3 flawed ones, you have the alcoholic that keeps getting promoted (yeah, he's a genius), the drugo-friend is a fairly successful wildlife handler (has been offered managerial positions at reputable crocodile farms and zoos -- turned down because he liked where he was) and our lazy taxi driver (doing whatever he falls into because he is happy enough) who continually is mentioned as a real nice bloke that would go out of his way to help anyone.
The alcoholic and druggo-friend refuse to talk to the parents, who are widely known as lovely people. Irreproachable.
It has a fair bit to do with parenting, but a lot to do with the child and their own decisions.
Confidence to reflect upon their problems which they can decide when they choose what to take to their parents. It is part of learning to make choices and take responsibility for your own actions.
That said, privacy should be an illusion until you are around 15 ~ 16 (depends on the child) when it becomes supervisory until they leave home.
Is there a good reason why ecologically sustainable shouldn't be pursued in our technological progress? The least degradation on any environment you are in makes sense to me whether it is economics, military tactics, moral practicality...
As a previous poster pointed out, the transportation through time is important too. And it is currently really inefficient. You always most of your electricity in the electric arcs that come off the machine.
As a member of what is often called the conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist Christian Right, I have not been able to find anything which would cause me to believe we shouldn't pursue nanotechnology. Nor genetics, stem cell research (Though I personally loath the idea of deliberately 'harvesting' embryos for the stem cells...) etc.
In Queensland, Analog is better than CDMA is better than 3g. No doubts. Telstra's 3g maps lie. If I could get an serviceable analog phone I would in a heart beat. Not that the gadgets aren't good, but service is better. I can imagine WA, NT SA and perhaps western NSW are in a similar situation.
And I don't want to touch it. For something like this, I'd rather play with a mouse trap than a match stick because I know what I'm getting myself in for.
Australians. If they aren't using Google, they seem to use Msn via ninemsn. Nine is one of our Big4 free to air channels who did some dodgy deal with Microsoft way back. As far as I know we only have five national f.t.a.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even in the same league. If smoker statistics were corrected, the world would become a worse place. As it is, I have only ever met one smoker who kept their butts, put them in a special pocket ashtray and disposed of them sensibly. Until that is the norm I'd rather it be prohibitive for smokers to 'enjoy' their habit. Bring back the pipe I say, or don't smoke at all.
Don't forget their boring ads!
I gave reasons that could have come out of my psyche lecturers mouths (I'm "studying" education to become a teacher.) I then added my own thoughts to that sentiment which brought the reasons for children's privacy back to your own conclusions. Needless to say I disagree with my lecturers a lot.
It is not all down to parenting.
My parents raised 6 children. 5 have stable lives, are sensible, down to earth. 1 is studying and taxi driving. 4 are married and 2 have children. So far so good.
1 is an alcoholic/social drug user, 1 is hanging around with drugos though no evidence of use. The 4 oldest were all raised effectively the same way, the youngest was raised with a lot more leniency. 2 are completely unmotivated to do things beyond their interests, 1 of which hangs around with drugos (the youngest).
So you have three which have glaring flaws, 3 effectively successful. Of the 3 flawed ones, you have the alcoholic that keeps getting promoted (yeah, he's a genius), the drugo-friend is a fairly successful wildlife handler (has been offered managerial positions at reputable crocodile farms and zoos -- turned down because he liked where he was) and our lazy taxi driver (doing whatever he falls into because he is happy enough) who continually is mentioned as a real nice bloke that would go out of his way to help anyone.
The alcoholic and druggo-friend refuse to talk to the parents, who are widely known as lovely people. Irreproachable.
It has a fair bit to do with parenting, but a lot to do with the child and their own decisions.
Confidence to reflect upon their problems which they can decide when they choose what to take to their parents. It is part of learning to make choices and take responsibility for your own actions.
That said, privacy should be an illusion until you are around 15 ~ 16 (depends on the child) when it becomes supervisory until they leave home.
Nice
I love the kender, they are the funniest thing ever thought of.
Not bad! Made me laugh.
so, more of the same....
what change is that? I haven't noticed anything.
You are not alone...
Dude? ... Put your nerd friend back online this instant! He has a lot to answer for.... >:s
Is there a good reason why ecologically sustainable shouldn't be pursued in our technological progress? The least degradation on any environment you are in makes sense to me whether it is economics, military tactics, moral practicality...
His Fact = water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas.
...?
Your Fact =
Your claim = his fact is denial because your facts are more obvious!
As a previous poster pointed out, the transportation through time is important too. And it is currently really inefficient. You always most of your electricity in the electric arcs that come off the machine.
As a member of what is often called the conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist Christian Right, I have not been able to find anything which would cause me to believe we shouldn't pursue nanotechnology. Nor genetics, stem cell research (Though I personally loath the idea of deliberately 'harvesting' embryos for the stem cells...) etc.
In Queensland, Analog is better than CDMA is better than 3g. No doubts. Telstra's 3g maps lie. If I could get an serviceable analog phone I would in a heart beat. Not that the gadgets aren't good, but service is better. I can imagine WA, NT SA and perhaps western NSW are in a similar situation.
And I don't want to touch it. For something like this, I'd rather play with a mouse trap than a match stick because I know what I'm getting myself in for.
Australians. If they aren't using Google, they seem to use Msn via ninemsn. Nine is one of our Big4 free to air channels who did some dodgy deal with Microsoft way back. As far as I know we only have five national f.t.a.
What games to you play with OO?
humour.
Isn't Suse normally green?
The silverlight plugin won't work on wine.... Ahh weeellll....
more than one