Кадиллак SRX
Cadillac SRX

Назад, к списку автомобилей

Описание и характеристики автомобиля
Тип т/с

Автомобиль
Модель

Кадиллак SRX
Кузов

универсал
Год

2004
Двигатель

Инжектор
Объем

4565
КПП

АКПП
Пробег

76270 Км
Цвет

Серый
Привод

Полный
Состояние

Отличное
Цена

774000 р.

Cadillac SRX
Cadillac SRX
Опции и комплектация:
Литые диски, Кожаный салон, Климат-контроль, Подогрев сидений, Эл. сиденья с памятью, Эл. сиденья, Эл. зеркала, Зеркала с подогревом, Эл. стеклоподъемники, Круиз-контроль.
ГУР, Серворуль, Airbag, ABS (антиблокировочная система), ASR (антипробуксовочная система), Антизаносная система, ESP (система курсовой устойчивости), CD чейнджер, Акустика, Сабвуфер, Сигнализация, Центральный замок, Иммобилайзер, CD магнитола MP3, Музыкальный усилитель.
Тонировка, Парктроник, Датчик дождя, Омыватель фар, Катализатор, Противотуманки, Комплект резины, Сервисная книжка, Ксенон, Борт. компьютер, DVD проигрыватель, Доп. стоп-сигнал, Защита картера, Подкрылки cadillac.miheeff.net

Ответьте мне, пожалуйста, на несколько вопросов…
- какая программа умеет автоматически за НЕСКОЛЬКО СЕКУНД регистрировать ящики на mail.ru и многих других почтовиках?
- какая программа умеет автоматом рассылать по mamba.ru и loveplanet.ru по заданным параметрам, при этом еще поддерживая функции автоответчика?
- а также сможет разослать по форумам текст (например) “где купить валенки?”, а потом в ответ на этот текст ОТ ДРУГОГО имени и IP написать (например) “только на сайте megavalenki.ru!”?
- плюс распознаёт картинки и вопросы а-ля “что написано на этой картинке?”, “сколько будет 2+2?” и “какой сейчас год?” и умеет корректно на них отвечать?
- какая программа сможет разослать топики по форумам, попутно автоматически регистрироваться на них и создавая подробный отчет о проделанной работе?
- и при этом работает с разнообразными движками - phpBB, VBulletin, IPB, ExBB, Icon Board, YaBB, UltimateBB, множеством различных гостевых, досок и блогов?
- какую программу вы МОЖЕТЕ переделать под свой вкус?
- какая программа автоматически обновляет прокси / SOCKS, обеспечивая вам полную анонимность? (достаточно просто нажать ОДНУ кнопку)
- какая программа умеет рассылать персональные сообщения всем пользователям форумов phpBB, IPB, VBulletin?
- какая программа отсортирует Вашу базу ссылок по Google PageRank?
- какая программа МАССОВО отредактирует все Ваши ранее разосланные объявления по форумам?
- и при этом еще регулярно обновляется и совершенствуется.

Ответ ОДИН: всё это и многое другое под силу программному комплексу XRumer 4.085 Platinum Edition + Hrefer 2.85
Данный комплекс имеет множество отзывов на авторитетных источниках (Washington Post, Wikipedia и т.п.), имеет историю активного развития более 3-х лет.

Just Google!

См. также: программы для СЕО, хрумер, постинг по блогам, рассылка по форумам, XRumer Platinum, софт для СЕО, black SEO, doorways, хрумер 2.9 устарел, распознавание капчи, массовые рассылки, ППЦ, разослать по форумам и гостевым, софт для SEO, хрумер 3.0 устарел, PPC, XRumer forever, постинг, дорвеи, белое СЕО, программы для SEO, линкспам, чёрное СЕО, XRumer 3.0 устарел, XRumer 2.9 устарел, рефспам, white SEO, XRumer, SEO, распознавание графической защиты, суперсофт для SEO, СЕО

A couple amplifications …

“…the idea of “never saying ‘no’” is not libertarianism . . . it’s anarchy…”

Absolutely – I couldn’t agree more. I didn’t mean that I never wanted to say “no”, but that I always wanted to be able to explain why, and use the moment to teach rather than just leave the question at “no.”

What I meant to imply above “…the right reason might be “Because I’m the Dad, and I said so.” , but coupled with, when time allows, a teaching moment as to why …” is that in those few instances when that is the immediate reason, it should ALWAYS be followed up as soon as time and circumstances permit. Needless to say, most even well intentioned parents, me included, do not do that. I agree that it is NEVER the ultimate, actual reason.

Yes … I did want to raise “good children”, due in part at least to my experiences around some who were not. I disliked being around them as much as you did. While there’s obviously nothing wrong with that, my ultimate goal in the endeavor was to raise them to be “good adults.” Frankly, I think that was a halting and stumbling but in the end overwhelming success. I’m glad you want to raise good adults. I KNOW I did!

God Bless.

P.S.

MY lengthy comment??? You’re not exactly frugal with words sir!

Heidi and I will routinely stop some conversation we’re having - whether about parenting or some other, tangentally related topic - and make some comment about how lucky we both are to have the parents we do. I certainly wouldn’t accuse you or mom of needing us to “fit into your lives, schedules, decisions, etc.” . . .

I agree that we’re not very far apart, but I think we may be further apart than it seems because our differences, though few, are fairly fundamental. However, I never intended this conversation on parenting to become a referendum on YOUR parenting skills. Just because we seem to have a somewhat different philosophy on parenting - and on life in general - doesn’t mean that I think you were a bad father, or that you should have done everything differently. Did you make some mistakes? Sure . . . you are, after all, human. I expect that when I am a father, I too will make some mistakes.

But let me draw this back to where it began - with the concept of “true” versus “apparent” freedom. Let me be clear, I have no illusions that I will be able to go through the process of raising children without ever saying “no.”

But the idea of “never saying ‘no’” is not libertarianism . . . it’s anarchy. While many tend to confuse the two, they are very different. Libertarianism, at its roots, is not really about completely unbridled freedom . . . at least not the way I interpret it. At its very core, libertarianism is a very freeing philosophy, but that freedom is a byproduct of something deeper - respect.

You have, I know, heard the libertarian mantra that “my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose.” This phrase, though seemingly trite, captures the distinction between libertarianism and anarchy. An anarchist acknowledges no such restriction. For an anarchist, freedom is its own end, but for a libertarian, it is the respect . . . the VALUE . . . he places in himself and others that are the reason and the source of that freedom. My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose because of the value you have as a human being, and because of the value I have as a human being, I will respect that boundary.

This respect - this value - extends not only to other adults, but to children as well. They are no less valuable just because they do not have the capacity for fully-informed decisionmaking. For that reason, yes, there are times I will tell my children “no,” but I will NOT excuse myself from explaining the reason for that “no,” by giving them the false reason, “because I’m the dad.” As Heidi said, this is NEVER the real reason . . . and it was never the real reason when you gave it to me. The real reason might be a good one, like “because I am older and wiser than you, and I know better than you do what is needed in this situation,” or it might be a bad one like “because giving you what you want inconveniences me too much to bother,” but there is ALWAYS something deeper than “because I’m the dad.”

. . . and your response might be that a child cannot always grasp the real reason . . . but that fact does not mean they don’t deserve to hear it. And when they DO hear it, they will be challenged to think more deeply, and to more thoroughly develop their own capacity for decisionmaking. You mentioned in your first lengthy comment that,

“A child left to make his own choices will consistently make poor ones, at least until he begins to pay the price for making them, because he is a child. Often in today’s world by the time the bill comes due for those poor choices it is too late.”

You are absolutely right. The undeniable fact that you point out here seems to me to leave two possible courses of action - either train your child to engage in instant and unquestioning obedience, or train them to recognize poor choices.

The inevitable result of the first course of action is a human being dependent on the whims and wills of others. This may work out well for you while you’re around, but what about when you’re not?? Who will they allow to make their decisions then?? They certainly won’t be well-equipped to make those decisions themselves, having never learned how.

The result of the second course of action is, as you correctly point out, a child who is forced to learn from his or her mistakes . . . but who, when they make those mistakes AS A CHILD, is able to learn good decision-making BEFORE they are faced with a choice where the wrong road leads to drastic, life-long consequences.

THAT is why I said what I did about the boy who is never allowed to make the choice to play now and work later. To me, being faced with the choice of, “clean your room now or get a spanking” seems, in most cases, to be a good way to teach instant obedience. But if, on the other hand, that boy is faced with the choice of, “you can play now and clean your room later, but you must have it clean by bedtime or you won’t get dessert” carries a much deeper set of lessons. The boy in question may end up going to bed without his ice cream a few times, but instead of a lesson in “instant obedience,” he will learn discernment, time management, prioritization and decisionmaking skills that will stand him in good stead long after his childhood years are past.

And that, I think, is the heart of the matter. It seems to me that the root of your philosophy of child-rearing aims to raise good children. And as the product of that philosophy, I happen to think you did a pretty good job of it. But I don’t want to raise good children . . . I want to raise good adults.

. . . and frankly, instant, unquestioning obedience is NOT a trait I consider a virtue, in a well-adjusted adult.

There is a second consequence to all this as well. The child who lives under threat of punishment for failing to “instantly obey,” learns to relate to his parents out of fear, while the one who is RESPECTED by those parents enough to make his own choices - even when they are the WRONG choices - learns the real meaning of God’s love . . . for that is EXACTLY how God related to Adam and Eve. They were children in their understanding of the world, and of Him, prior to having their eyes opened to the nature of good and evil. And He gave them the freedom to disobey Him, KNOWING FULL WELL not only the choice they would make, but the effect that choice would have on the rest of humanity.

THAT is how I want to relate to my children.

. . . then again, you might be right, and my philosophy might just be a pie-in-the-sky, idealistic vision that will have no basis in reality once I actually have kids . . . I guess I’ll take your advice and come back to you in 10-15 years, and find out .

As far as the 5 points go…I think the “freedom to say what one feels and thinks instead of what one should” IS an essential freedom, but one that we learn more control of as we get older. That means children very well might say things that are “inappropriate” in a certain setting, and hopefully we can help them learn from these situations when they are small and insignificant, so that by the time they are in an important situation, they have learned appropriate modes of expression. But I don’t think that helping develop appropriate responses to certain settings need involve *denying* them the freedom to say what they feel. More…helping them learn HOW to say what they feel in a way that is appropriate.

I think that a lot of parents need to just get over their own embarrassment at “inappropriate” behavior and look more at what they’re telling their child about what kind of human being to become. Are they trying to develop a people-pleaser, who always does/says the right things but wears a false front? Sometimes I think that parents are unconsciously doing this very thing, because they themselves want to be patted on the back for their “good parenting” when their child behaves well in public. I personally would rather be embarrassed sometimes and develop a human being who is authentic, in touch with their thoughts and feelings, and as they get older, one who learns how to express and deal with those thoughts and feelings in appropriate ways.

As far as “telling Bill Clinton how you feel” - I think the issue again is not *denying* yourself (or being denied) the freedom to say what you feel, but rather - choosing not to exercise it in that setting. This is what I would like to develop in my (someday) kids, rather than denying them that freedom for a time and then suddenly giving it to them at a time when they’ve learned to “say what one should”.

You said, “Doesn’t that imply that there are times when the right reason might be ‘Because I’m the dad, and I said so’, coupled with, when time allows, a teaching moment as to why ‘my decision is the right one.’”

Actually, no, I don’t think it implies that. I can’t think of a hypothetical situation where the true reason why they should do something is because the parent said so. Even in those cases of danger (get out of the street NOW!) - while there may not be time for a protracted discussion about why - the real reason is because they’d get hit if they don’t, not “because I’m the parent.” Not even, “Because I’m the parent, and I said so, and here’s why MY decision is the best one.” Again, in those cases of true danger that require instantaneous “obedience”, I think the real issue is trust - and a child who has simply been conditioned to obey many times when it is NOT important or dangerous, is actually learning the opposite of what their parents intend: that when mom/dad says to do something, oftentimes it is arbitrary, so why listen? It’s like crying wolf - by the time the “get out of the street” moment comes, the child may have stopped listening altogether, having learned that most of what mom/dad wants me to do is arbitrary and unimportant. Versus, if they have the trust to know that EVERYTHING mom/dad says has a reason, and even if I don’t know this one right now, it sounds important.

Incidentally, I don’t practice obeying my friends instantaneously, but if one of them yelled at me to get out of the street, I would - not because I was “obeying” but because I heard the fear in their voice and I trust their perception of a situation. I don’t think children are really all that different.

I also think that most adults would be surprised at what a child can understand about the way the world works. I explain very adult concepts to five year olds for a living. Very often I use a word they don’t understand, or a concept they don’t understand. (One parent thanked me profusely for not treating her 9 year old as, well, a 9 year old. I related to her much like I would relate to any adult.) When I can see the child doesn’t understand what I’m talking about, I will break it down and use different words, until I get them to understand. I have never had a situation where I can’t, in the end, get a 5 year old to grasp what I’m talking about.

There are a lot of things I ask them to do that are non-negotiable - they must learn to play with their fingers on thumbside corners, they must stand without slouching, they must play without noise in their tone, etc. But I would NEVER (and have never) said “because I’m the teacher” as the reason why they must do something. ALL questions are okay, even when they’re driving the parents nuts. If the child doesn’t understand WHY a technique is important, I don’t see the point in teaching it.

So while I would never teach the Tchaikovsky concerto directly to a five year old beginner, in many ways, I am preparing each of them at every lesson to play the Tchaikovsky concerto someday, which means letting them begin to make artistic choices in the earliest stages, and which means respecting their ability to understand difficult musical concepts.

It might be easier to simply get them to play Twinkle well by obeying every directive of mine “because I’m the teacher”, and they might become masters at Twinkle, and might do so faster, but they would never ever get to the Tchaikovsky concerto if that were my method.

Honestly, I don’t really understand the “need” many parents have to make their child “obey.” I don’t know that strict obedience is a trait I want to cultivate in my child. I want to cultivate understanding, responsibility, maturity, discernment, the ability to think things through, the ability to be authentic, the ability to doubt and think for one’s self…many of which are short circuited by blanket obedience. I read recently about an experiment in which subjects were tested to see just how much they would obey an authority figure even when it involved hurting others. It was scary how much they would obey…and it’s just not something I’m sure I want to cultivate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

While there are some times the child does not have a “choice” per se, because he is a child, I feel that things are always up for discussion, we can always talk about it, the child can always tell me how she feels, even if in the end I say “this is what we’re doing, for the reasons outlined earlier.” I really would rather be a “partner in development” than an “authority figure.”

I heard recently the concept of “normal difficult behavior” - i.e. it is normal for a 9 month old to throw things, and normal for a two year old to have a temper tantrum. A child’s first lie, developmentally, is “normal difficult behavior” - realizing “I can know something you don’t know.” It’s not a moral issue…it’s a developmental issue. When a child is exhibiting normal difficult behaviors for their age, I think it is very important to consider what we are telling them about learning and development if we just get embarrassed or frustrated and make the “point” to be quiet or obey or whatever. Versus, if an 8 year old throw a temper tantrum, that is NOT “normal difficult behavior”, and would need to be dealt with in an entirely different way than when a 2yo throws a tantrum.

Another example is that 4 and 5 year old kids will suddenly start interrupting their parents a lot. Is the issue that “they just need to learn not to interrupt”? No…it is again a developmental issue…they have suddenly realized that their parents have a relationship that is separate from them, and they are inserting themselves into the relationship because they are really struggling with being on the outside of that relationship.

I think far too often we look at the behavior - the temper tantrum or the interruptions - rather than what is going on emotionally and developmentally for the child. Too often we’d rather have Stepford children who obey our every dictate, who are quiet, who speak only when we tell them to speak, who do chores without complaining (instantaneously!), who never fight with their siblings. The problem is that those Stepford children don’t often grow into emotionally healthy adults.