Comment Re:So how are they (Score 1) 109
I discovered Star Trek Continues after it was posted on Slashdot a couple of weeks ago. This series is now responsible for jump-starting my children's interest in Star Trek, so I rate it highly!
I discovered Star Trek Continues after it was posted on Slashdot a couple of weeks ago. This series is now responsible for jump-starting my children's interest in Star Trek, so I rate it highly!
You want me to go fight the Viet Cong? No Viet Cong ever called me nigger. You want me to kill Afghan and Iraqi Muslims? No Afghani or Iraqi ever spied on my private communications. My enemy is the American government, not "terrorists." You're my opposer when I want freedom. You're my opposer when I want justice. You won't even stand up for me in America for my privacy, and you want me to go somewhere and fight when you won't even stand up for my freedom at home.
Do you also support contract killings? Because he ordered hits on a few people.
The U.S. government that is prosecuting Ross pays for killings every day. Why should they have a monopoly?
Bit Coins are actually more real then the US Dollar. Sure we get a paper or coin note stating that this represents so much. But at least bit coin is connected to something in limited supply thus needs to be shared.
I've never understood the logic behind statements like this. There are an infinite possible number of cryptocurrencies. A cryptocurrency is nothing but a mathematical algorithm being run on a lot of computers. By its very nature, it can't be in limited supply. Saying that Bitcoin is valuable because it's scare is like saying that digital music or digital video must be valuable because they're scarce. Any one, at any time, can create his own blockchain and create a Bitcoin clone. After that, all he need to do is persuade other people to adopt his blockchain, and a new standard has been created, with the originator becoming "wealthy". In fact, I suspect that this idea may suddenly occur to the operators of one of the big idled mining centers over the next few months. And before anyone says, "But Bitcoin was first!", let me reply, "Friendster and MySpace".
A Bitcoin is a unit of account in a specific ledger. The number of units of account in that ledger is finite. Additional ledgers can be created, and have been. But the value of units of account in those ledgers is not equal to the value of the unit of account in the Bitcoin ledger.
It's a little bit like comparing seats at a concert. Yes, we can put more seats in the back, but they are not valued the same as seats in other sections. We can create more seats, but we can't create more seats in the front row.
Considering Pope Francis will never allow women priests or stop using the stupid, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" when referring to gays, the AC is correct.
Has Pope Francis been documented to say this somewhere? My understanding is that his position has been described as "Who am I to judge?"
This is just the logical extension of believing in "intellectual property" or any other fallacy where one person has a right to control someone else.
If you're hiding data from the NSA that sounds like you're some kind of criminal terrorist who hates the US
We need to change that perception. Being concerned about privacy from the NSA means that somebody is a good citizen who is concerned about freedom.
If you don't see a point in having 7 children, don't have 7 children.
So exercise your rights as a consumer to research beforehand and not buy it. Or return it. Or modify it, as you have
That's what he did. He exercised his right to modify it, and he exercised his right to tell people what he did.
My guess is they mean more sending your kid to sit in their room and supposedly think deep thoughts on whatever they did that led to being stuck in their room and how to act better next time.
Yeah, that never accomplished much for me. And I still had to learn to relax in the face of frustration when I was grown. If I had simply learned that before adulthood, I probably would have had 80% of what I needed to get by productively and healthily.
Here's where you'll say "NOTHING! They're all perfect Angles!"
I assume you meant "anglos"? Would it surprise you to learn that I'm raising them bilingually and interculturally?
This is me glaring at you incredulously ---**glares at you incredulously**
I think you could benefit from some form of relaxation therapy. It's not always necessary or helpful to vent against lifestyles that you disagree with.
I have five young kids. There's no way to survive this as a parent if you don't let your kids cry themselves to sleep at times. There simply aren't enough parents and time to go around otherwise. Every child is different, but my five only cried for a long period for about 2 weeks or less. Then it generally reduced to about 30-90 seconds. Over the course of their first year of life, they learn to sleep, in stages. There are regressions associated with certain development stages, but so be it. My family size was average until the last 2-3 generations. Is is abundantly apparent that the reduction in family size provides the luxury of a lot more choices in parenting. That's a positive thing. But because there is so much variety to the human condition, it is illogical to suggest that 'crying it out' is new or terribly sub-optimal.
I have seven children. We almost never had to let a child cry themselves to sleep, but I do suspect that may have to do with our kids' individual wiring and that crying to sleep might be the best solution in other situations. Most of our infant sleep problems were resolved when we realized our kids were much hungrier than experts predicted and started feeding them a lot more! Giving the baby another bottle turned out to be the number one way to get our babies to fall asleep with less fuss. When they get a little older (around 3-4 years) there are occasional times when a temper tantrum goes right into sleep.
Say goodbye to timeouts. So long spanking and other ritualized whacks. And cry-it-out sleep routines? Mercifully, they too can be a thing of the past.
I applaud any attempt to bring neuroscience and other scientific insights to bear on childrearing, but I question the idea that somebody who is an expert in one of these sub-issues would also be an expert in the others. Sounds like we are committing the logical fallacy of assuming that because one person is an expert in one field they are an expert in all. Maybe these are all related, but it just seems to me that neuroscience is complex enough that an answer to one of these questions doesn't have a lot of bearing on the answer to others.
I'm a father of seven, and I do a lot of work with my kids that could be called timeout, although I don't know if it fits anyone else's idea of what timeouts are. I make my children follow the same rule I was given for myself from a clinical psychologist: when you are angry or upset, don't say or do anything until you relax, because everything you are thinking of saying or doing is a bad idea. Over time you build up the habit of relaxing in the face of frustration, and when you do your brain stops putting so much energy into angry outbursts and starts putting it into actually solving your problem. Also you are a lot less likely to whack somebody that you want to be friends with for the rest of your life. I have a hard time believing that neuroscience would yield any results that say this is a bad idea for child rearing, but maybe they mean something different by "timeout."
I'm religious, fundamentalist, and I agree with you.
Oh, man, this guy and I were cut from the same OCD cloth. I know it just looking at his pictures of Atari 2600 game boxes all sorted first by box style and then alphabetized. I used to do that when I was a kid and when I finally get the thing out of storage I'll bet a bunch of the games are alphabetized.
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
