"What I say goes," we think to ourselves. Or so it should go, but often doesn't because of the age in which we live.
When it comes to discipline, many parents have taken a large step backwards, and technology is to blame. In this day and age of smart phone journalism, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook shares, parents have become wary and hesitant of punishing their children. The losers in this new world order? Our kids. Now that our every action and misstep can be recorded digitally to be played in perpetuity online, we are often reticent to discipline our children for worry about being caught on camera.
While the term "discipline" can take on many forms, you may be thinking that this new hesitancy pertains to physical punishment, or a good old spanking as it is sometimes called. Yet this is not the case. Parents are afraid to even raise their voices or say anything that is questioning of their child's behaviour, regardless of how bad, due to fear of being judged. Non-action as a parent seems to be the new normal.
How many times have we been in a public place and witnessed a child in the midst of a monumental meltdown? Without having to look too far, we've also seen a frazzled and stressed parent close by, often saying or doing nothing. The distinct look of embarrassment is clear on the face of this poor mother or father, yet they are clearly restrained in their response to situation at hand.
In previous times, the "spare the rod and spoil the child" philosophy would have been implemented on the spot, but not here and now in our age of reason. While I will say for the record that I believe that this is a good thing (there are alternatives to spanking), the choice to do nothing helps neither the parent nor the child in the situation. The parent has to deal with feelings of mortification because of her child's behaviour and the child has not learned the basic rules of how to behave in a public space. No one wins.
Is this hesitation to publicly scold or otherwise discipline our children representative of a generally more permissive society overall? How much does the fear of being judged, of the parents themselves being chastised and taken to task by observers factor in to whether or not mom and dad take action? Does the threat of being the next social media star to go "viral" -- and not in a good way -- stop a frustrated parent in their tracks, in spite of themselves? How about all of the above, with a particular emphasis on the social media angle? While we love our technology, we also fear it, as it has the ability to bring our downfall with a simple "like," "tweet" or "share."
In the classic sociology text The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Social Psychologist Erving Goffman popularized the concepts of "front stage" and "back stage." In the former, individuals behave in a certain manner when they believe they are being watched or judged (front stage); in the latter, an individual's true self and character is revealed when it is believed that no one is looking (back stage).
In situations where the question of whether children should be punished in public arises, it seems that all the world's a stage and all the mothers and fathers are merely players, whose actions at any moment can be recorded and uploaded to a willing audience in a matter of seconds. Not too appealing to any parent who has visions of their moment of weakness displayed forever on laptops, iPads and smart phones everywhere. This, to the detriment of their children.
As parents, our role is to teach our children right and wrong. We're obliged to educate them to differentiate between good and bad and how to behave accordingly. Technology notwithstanding, our responsibilities to raise our kids to have manners and to understand what is or is not appropriate behaviour should supersede any feelings of guilt or embarrassment, social media aside. Accordingly, let's do what's best for our children regardless of what others may think -- or record.
For many years, Apple <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/mac-virus-apple_n_1625110.html" target="_hplink">claimed on its website</a> that its computers were better than Windows machines since they weren't susceptible to viruses like PCs were. Sharks don't get cancer, real men don't eat quiche and Apple computers don't get viruses. The times, they are a'changed: In June, Apple <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/mac_viruses/" target="_hplink">updated its website</a> and removed the claim of malware immunity <a href="http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/04/05/mac-botnets-gaining-traction-using-drive-by-java-exploit/" target="_hplink">due to an ongoing spate of viruses</a> attacking the Mac OS. The <a href="http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/04/24/mac-malware-study/" target="_hplink">security buffs at Sophos recently found that</a> 2.6 percent of Macs that had downloaded a virus-checker were in fact infected with malware. Seems like there may be a business in <a href="http://www.avast.com/free-antivirus-mac" target="_hplink">anti-virus software for the Mac</a>, after all. (And while we're on the subject, I am proud to announce that I do love me some quiche.)
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY" target="_hplink">When asked why his speakers</a>, whose volume count went to 11 rather than the traditional 10, were superior to other speakers, Spinal Tap lead singer Nigel Tufnel chewed his gum, thought about it for a moment, and then responded, "Well, it's one louder, isn't it?" before famously concluding, "These go to 11." It was nonsense, and so is the idea that the higher the megapixel count on a camera, the better that camera is. Just because a camera goes "one louder" than another does not mean it will give you better photos. A higher megapixel count is important if you plan on blowing up a photo to a larger size and don't want to lose quality (<a href="http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-57423240-85/camera-megapixels-why-more-isnt-always-better-smartphones-unlocked/" target="_hplink">CNET explains</a>), but for normal viewing, megapixels aren't as important as having a quality camera lens and light sensor. More goes into a camera than just megapixels, and you shouldn't be making your digital camera or smartphone selection based solely on the number of MPs it boasts (<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5888552/reminder-megapixels-dont-matter" target="_hplink">Gizmodo has a nice, human explanation</a> of why "megapixels don't matter"). Photography is more nuanced than a round number. There are better ways to get that "extra push over the cliff" (as Tufnel puts it) than increasing your megapixels.
For a long time, the common wisdom held that in order to save battery life on the iPhone, we could just double-tap the home button and close out all the apps on the bottom tray that we weren't using. BLOOP BLOOP BLOOP: 'X' out of the apps, and battery would be saved. Except, here's the thing: Those apps you see when you press the home button twice aren't actually running or using up any battery. <a href="http://speirs.org/blog/2012/1/2/misconceptions-about-ios-multitasking.html" target="_hplink">As Fraser Speirs pointed out earlier this year</a>, that row of icons is a list of recently used apps, NOT currently-running apps; when you hit the home button and exit an app, the iPhone automatically shuts it down after five seconds or so. Except in special cases (<a href="http://speirs.org/blog/2012/1/2/misconceptions-about-ios-multitasking.html" target="_hplink">listed on Speirs' site</a>), the app is not running nor eating up battery life. Closing out apps might be dang satisfying -- it's like playing whack-a-mole! -- but it is almost certainly not preserving battery life.
Here's a typical worry about laptop batteries, <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080914152547AAWBAXW" target="_hplink">from a curious bloke at the estimable Yahoo! Answers</a>: <blockquote>i work at my desk, so my laptop is plugged in even when I am not using it. Is it true this ruins the battery? If that is the case, should i remove the battery when i am not using it?? </blockquote> The short answer (which the top respondent got correct!): No, you are not ruining your laptop battery by keeping it on charge, unless your laptop is very, very old. This myth may have been true of nickel-based laptop batteries, which laptops and smartphones seldom use anymore; most laptops nowadays, however, use lithium-based batteries, which are not susceptible to "losing charge" if you keep them plugged in all the time. In fact, it's <a href="http://www.dansdata.com/danletters017.htm" target="_hplink">probably better to stay plugged in</a> than it is to constantly drain your battery to zero percent and then recharge over and over again, an act that lowers your battery's lifespan. For much more, tech writer Marco Arment <a href="http://www.marco.org/2009/09/24/laptop-battery-myths" target="_hplink">explains The Way Lithium Batteries Work on his website.</a> Speaking of pesky battery myths, by the way...
Again, this is <a href="http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/24/10-6-falsely-reports-service-battery-i-think-not/" target="_hplink">an old bit of wisdom</a> applied erroneously to new technologies. Your lithium-ion battery is only good for so many "cycles," <a href="http://www.dansdata.com/danletters017.htm" target="_hplink">according to long-time tech writer Daniel Rutter</a>. Allowing your battery to drop to 10 percent and then recharging counts as a cycle, wears on the battery, and reduces its longevity. It's not something you want to do too often, unless you really enjoy battery shopping. <a href="http://lifehacker.com/5875162/how-often-should-i-charge-my-gadgets-battery-to-prolong-its-lifespan" target="_hplink">Lifehacker recommends</a> a full discharge once a month, though <a href="http://www.marco.org/2009/09/24/laptop-battery-myths" target="_hplink">there's some debate about</a> whether even this step is necessary.
Watch out, guys: Your laptop is <em>literally</em> zapping your sperm one by one, like Marvin the Martian with a vendetta against your little guys. I can understand why this scary story -- in which <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/laptop-wifi-sperm-damage-electromagnetic-radiation_n_1118726.html" target="_hplink">a team of researchers found that</a> sperm exposed to radiation from laptop WiFi had badly damaged DNA and were less motile -- might make men think twice about holding their laptops on their laps, unless they were wearing some kind of radiation-blocking iron jockstrap (and really, who doesn't?). But it now appears that the study was carelessly carried out and likely did not indicate that our sperm was in danger in a real-world setting. Here's Dr. Robert Oates, President of the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57332822-10391704/laptops-damage-sperm-what-wi-fi-study-shows/" target="_hplink">debunking the findings in Reuters</a>: "This is not real-life biology, this is a completely artificial setting...It is scientifically interesting, but to me it doesn't have any human biological relevance." There are plenty of good reasons not to hold your laptop on your lap: The descriptively named "toasted skin syndrome" or "laptop thigh" (DO NOT GOOGLE) being one of them -- but an evisceration of your sperm by the notebook's WiFi signal is not one of them. You, and your semen, can rest safe.
A lot of keyboard elitists -- yes, they exist, mostly in Portland -- will try to claim to you that the QWERTY layout was so designed in order to slow down typists and that only simpletons still use QWERTY, the sophisticated herd having switched over to the DVORAK layout. But hold your head high, QWERTY user: It isn't true, at all. The (incorrect) story goes that back in the early days of the typewriter, in the 1870s, a newspaper editor was tired of how often his reporters' typewriters kept jamming, so he conspired to configure the keys to be so idiotically placed with respect to one another that even the nimblest typists would be slowed down and jams would be reduced. A pretty story but -- alas! -- not true. The QWERTY layout <em>was</em> decided upon in order to reduce jams, but <em>not</em> by making the act of typing slower. Instead, <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~dcrehr/whyqwert.html" target="_hplink">as this helpful article explains</a>, the keys were laid out according to a combination of letter frequency and so that hitting common letter combinations -- "t" and "h," for example -- would not cause internal jammage. Thus was born the modern keyboard, which just so happened to have the letters Q-W-E-R-T-Y in order across the top row. In the 1930s, a <a href="http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/Dvorak/" target="_hplink">new keyboard was invented</a>: the DVORAK, which put the five most frequently used vowels and the five most frequently used consonants in the middle row. By then, however, the QWERTY had such a strong foothold that it would continue to be the default keyboard for decades to come (except in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, where I hear DVORAK's <em>huge</em>).
Magnets: How do they work? It's a sincere mystery to most, but this much we do know: Unless you keep some ridiculously powerful degaussing magnets in your home, you're probably not going to zap your hard drive with one. <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/116572/busting_the_biggest_pc_myths.html" target="_hplink">PCWorld debunked this one</a> all the way back in 2004: Though a common magnet can erase the contents of a floppy disk (remember those?), USB storage, SD cards, and laptop and desktop hard drives are safe from all but the very strongest magnets. In more detail, meanwhile, <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407192,00.asp" target="_hplink">PCMag attempted to find out</a> what it would take to use a magnet to erase a laptop's hard drive without removing it: The magazine found that you would need an incredibly strong, industrial-strength magnet pointed in just the right direction in order to wipe a hard drive's contents, and that it was about as unlikely as my getting a date to junior prom (really, really unlikely). In other words, your data is probably A-OK if you accidentally place a refrigerator magnet on your MacBook. Better safe than sorry, of course -- you shouldn't keep magnets near your hard drive, nor your laptop near your sperm, nor magnets near your sperm, etc. -- but it's still not likely you're going to wipe your memory with any magnet you keep at home.
No, it isn't. Don't believe the chain letters, or your great uncle's alarmist status, or whatever. Facebook is never going to charge for service. As proof, I offer a section <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/myths" target="_hplink">from the Facebook Help Center</a> entitled "Facebook Myths." And I quote: <blockquote>Will Facebook ever charge for service? No. We will always keep Facebook a free service for everyone. </blockquote> Sorry, conspiracy theorists: Facebook is likely to stay free forever, until the day it folds after the never-saw-it-coming resurgence of MySpace.
Follow Samantha Kemp-Jackson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@samkj27