|
|
The English is pretty bad...but that's probably part of why Mommy Dearest was so annoyed.
I don't think the belt was appropriate, but she should get a medal for embarrassing her daughter into (perhaps) learning something at last...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I don't think the belt was appropriate
When I was a kid, the sound of leather clearing belt loops was not what you wanted to hear. It certainly kept us from doing stupid shit.
More often than not, a belt certainly IS appropriate, and the general outlook that it isn't is precisely the reason kids are the way they are today.
It's a fact of human nature that kids need to have a knot yanked in them when they screw up.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Although I agree with you, most people don't. I know this fact doesn't sway you, nor I, but I do find it interesting and felt like mentioning it.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Although I agree with you, most people don't want others to think that they're saints, and not see their huge failings.
Correctomundo!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh! Once more, an example of "it didn't do me any harm"
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: More often than not, a belt certainly IS appropriate
Ahh, yes, beat children - they'll sure learn better that way!
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: precisely the reason kids are the way they are today.
Ahh! Yes - all the evidence points that way.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: It's a fact of human nature that kids need to have a knot yanked in them when they screw up.
Ahh! Yes - of course. I mean, if you want a dog to do a trick, the best thing to do is not to treat him when he does what you want, but to beat the living crap out of him when he doesn't. Works all the time. QED.
Can I vote your post as being the single most moronic post I have ever had the misfortune to read on Code Project? And yes, that includes Q&A.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: Can I vote your post as being the single most moronic post I have ever had the misfortune to read on Code Project? And yes, that includes Q&A.
No. He is correct.
All the talking and lovey dovey sh*t in the world won't actually let them know where the line is. When they get to work or down the pub there is a line, they don't know it exists let alone where it is so they get fired or flogged. Unfortunately the flogging down the pub/street/cinema now isn't with fists by a single person, it's 17 people (I can't say non white people here can I) with knives and/or bats.
My boy is a typical 18 Gen Y f***wit, but he knows about the line and even when he goes out with mates and gets written off he comes home without pieces missing.
He didn't get the belt cause my hand could do better and I didn't have to catch him from a distance.
You do teaching, have a good look at the students now they don't have the cane to contend with. The single, stupidest nanny state politically correct decision ever made by our education system.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
The line is where we, as parents, draw it.
If you hit your child for, say, stabbing a friend in the eye with a pencil, then all good - although they probably already knew they did something really bad.
But, unfortunately, studies show repeatedly that hitting children does not alter bad behaviour.
Children need to know the boundaries of acceptable behaviour - and they can be taught extremely well without hitting them - that is a fact, can be demonstrated and has been time and time again.
How many parents do you know who seem to be hitting their kids all the time? Ask yourself this; if hitting them stopped bad behaviour, why did you have to hit them again?
Michael Martin wrote:
My boy is a typical 18 Gen Y f***wit, but he knows about the line and even when he goes out with mates and gets written off he comes home without pieces missing.
So what? Again, and example of the 'id didn't do me any harm' school of thought!
If he had come home and died on the floor from blood loss and.or overdose would you be saying the same thing? No - because he'd be dead!
it's like the father who said "I don't make my kids wear helmets on their bikes - we never wore them & I'm OK!"
Doesn't matter on your feelings about the helmet laws - if the father had fallen off his bike as a child and was a quadriplegic,he wouldn't have been having the conversation in the first place!
Michael Martin wrote: have a good look at the students now they don't have the cane to contend with.
Not having the cane is not the reason. Not having acceptable behaviour policies is. At most schools I have taught at, the punishment for misnbehaving is to stay in for 10 minutes at break time. THAT is what is f***ed.
When I was at school, I would much rather have been whacked (especially by that good looking Maths teacher!) than have to go home and tell my parents I had to go into school on Saturday for detention - or even stay at school late for same. And my parents never hit me. they may have shouted, they may have told me how disappointed they were etc. But I wasn't frightened of them!
Actually, going into school, in uniform, on a Saturday, was just bloody awful!
The point is, you are taking one thing (absence of cane) and extrapolating without taking other things into account. It doesn't work.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: But, unfortunately, studies show repeatedly that hitting children does not alter bad behaviour.
Children need to know the boundaries of acceptable behaviour - and they can be taught extremely well without hitting them - that is a fact, can be demonstrated and has been time and time again.
How many parents do you know who seem to be hitting their kids all the time? Ask yourself this; if hitting them stopped bad behaviour, why did you have to hit them again?
Crap. It's like having to rub the puppy's nose in sh*t more than once for them to learn. Short of dying or major permanent injury, one bad experience won't stop anyone from going back for more.
There's always people that take things to extreme and will beat there kids continuously cause they are f***ed in the head. Just cause they exist doesn't mean everyone should be treated the same and it be assumed that they hit they're kids cause they like it.
F*** yeah we should go back to less care more responsibility. I didn't just ride without a helmet, I rode on busy roads with no hands. Only had to be hit by a car on a 60mp/h road to learn to take things more seriously. Ghopped down trees with friends only to notice we f***ed up when the tree fell towards us. Run fast we did, sideways as well. Climbed in houses being built and fell through roofs. Threw pieces of broken fibro at each other across dams. We stopped when I hit one kid in the forehead and opened him up like a can of peas.
Getting a flogging when we got caught was par for the course and taught us either not to do it again or at least not get caught by parents.
Never did me no harm and even the f***wits from the 70's are better people than 95% of the helicopter parented no idea protected from themselves twat coming out today.
Had a comment for something below, but it's getting too long now. Probably something about bring the cane back and the rest of the girly don't hurt them crap will fix itself. Weekend detention or after school detention works if the kids can get themselves back home. In my case they couldn't (stupid mother wanting catholic school she went too) and the school could get f***ed if they are interrupting my or my wifes work day or weekends. I told the school to either cane them or get f***ed. They chose themselves to get f***ed.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
not sure what you're saying? You believe that continued punishment is the answer because "they will learn eventually"?
Well that is true. That's exactly how torture works on people. Continued abuse to break the will to resist. That sure works! good on you- totrure your kids for a quiet life (and your dog, too, by the sounds of it!)
Incidentally we have three dogs, none of which poo in the house, and none of which have had their noses rubbed in it, ever. We just trained them - and in fact it is quite easy because generally animals don't sh*t in their dens anyway.
Michael Martin wrote: Getting a flogging when we got caught was par for the course and taught us either not to do it again or at least not get caught by parents.
So what was the point of the flogging? it didn't stop the behaviour - isn't that what your parents wanted? Or did they just not want to know?
Michael Martin wrote: Never did me no harm
You're sure about that?
Michael Martin wrote: even the f***wits from the 70's are better people than 95% of the helicopter parented no idea protected from themselves twat coming out today.
Taking it to extremes doesn't help! You can go too far in any direction - and I do know parents whose kids are absolute monsters - but that's not because they don't hit them, it's because they let them do whatever they want without boundaries - so they know they can get away with anything as mum and dad will just tut.
Depending on the child, it is perfectly possible to explain to them the consequences of their actions, stick to known, discussed boundaries, and consequences.
for example - taking a teenager's phone from them for a day is a far worse punishment in many cases than beating them - and has far fewer problems.
Michael Martin wrote: interrupting my or my wifes work day or weekends. I told the school to either cane them or get f***ed. They chose themselves to get f***ed
What excellent parenting skills, and a great example to your children!
If instead you had supported the school, gone out of your way a couple of times, your kids would know jut how pissed off you were with them having to take them to school on a Saturday, and would try to avoid it (and hopefully not because you belted them for getting a detention!)
As it is they are in the position of knowing the school cannot give them a detention, and so behaviour modification is out the window!
Honestly, if I was that school I'd consider just phoning you to confirm whatever behaviour was at issue, every time, and let you deal with it in your own way. Sounds like your kids are probably scared enough of you that they would try to avoid that at all costs!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
My son is using the "naughty corner" style on his little terrors. When we looked after them it was, you muck up and granpa will whack you, hard. It only took one good whack and they behaved all weekend.
A little pain is a great educator.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
On the positive side, it could have read "I IS Not aloud....".
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
|
|
|
|
|
She got all F's... I can see where she got it from 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
They don't speak English in the Americas, anyway. The degree of upward screwing of the language isn't as important as the fact that the language is screwed up.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
According to Wikipedia, this piece of history clocked at 3.25 MHz. I'm having a hard time believing that, when a VIC-20 clocked at 1Mhz, a BBC Micro 2MHz.
Can anyone confirm this?
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds possible. The 8080 on which the very first IBM PC was based, clocked just north of 4 MHz. This was late 1970s technology.
|
|
|
|
|
The ZX-81 used the same processor as the ZX-80: a Z80A @ 3.25Mz. (or the NEC µPD780C-1 equivalent, depending on the manufacturer stock).
This was not as fast as it sounds in comparison to the BBC and VIC-20 as the whole thing was designed to be as cheap as possible and was horribly slow.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: This was not as fast as it sounds in comparison to the BBC and VIC-20
Why not though? Both 8 bit processors presumably with similar instruction sets (I'm familiar with the 6502, not the Z80), so I would have thought that clock speed would be a good indicator of performance.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Processor is only one part of a system: think how slow a Windows PC gets if you have too little RAM, for example.
The ZX81 had only four chips IIRC - processor, RAM (1K), ROM (8K), and a programmable logic chip to tie it all together and provide the chip selects etc.
The BBC had a lot of hardware to do things the Sinclair had to do in software - so more instructions need to do the same task.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
No. The 6502 actually was a snail when compared to a Z80 at the same frequency. Then again, in such contests algorithmic optimizations often had more effect and triggered the next round when the opponent did the same optimizations on 'his' processor.
It has been decades since I wrote code for a 6502, but from my deepest memories comes 'zero page addressing' as one of the causes of the 6502's slowness.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: but from my deepest memories comes 'zero page addressing' as one of the causes of the 6502's slowness
I might be a bit old now, but wasn't the point with Zero Page Addressing that you only needed two bytes instead of three when addressing and thereby making it 30% faster if you could fit the core of the code into the first page?
Personally I remember swearing over just having three registers.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think you are right. It has been a while, but not so long I used a C compiler for the 6502 to write some stuff for the 8 bit Ataris and a C64. The author of the C compiler also did not think that the 6502 was ideal for C. Nor any other 8 bit processor, I think. Still, it's real fun to chase some oldschool sprites around the screen with C. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the Motorola 6502 and Intel 8080 used the clocks differently - the 6502 was '2 cycle' and the 8080 was '4 cycle' for the same instruction processing unit, so 1 a 4 MHz 8080 was *roughly* equivalent to a 2 MHz 6502.
According to my calculations, I should be able to retire about 5 years after I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Other sources seems to be reporting the same CPU speed.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
