Children can be much more happy than adults. Adults have experienced death of dear ones, farewells or illnesses, or realization that some of their goals they wholeheartedly wanted to achieve cannot be achieved anymore in this life. This all remains constantly in the head and cannot make room enough for a full and absolute happiness. Though children do have this room, and therefore can be absolutely happy.

If you as a child were made absolutely happy on every Christmas (or other big holiday in other cultures), this holiday can become a “tag” for that childish happiness, which can be used later in the adult life to remember of those happy times and to try to be happy again.

For me, this happiness tag is triggered by the smell of the christmas tree and the mandarines. Yesterday I was in subway, when I saw one tiny fir tree brach lying on the floor and radiating its smell. And I uncontrollably laughed.

Seriously, judge for yourself.

Before, I was proud that I’ve ever compiled Linux kernel from its sources before (which is untypical for a hardcore Microsoft fan). Today, I re-complile the kernel several times a week.

Before, I was proud that I know what DirectShow filters and the graph are (which is untypical for a normal Silverlight developer). Today, I fix bugs and develop own filters for GStreamer, the open-source alternative of DirectShow.

Before, I thought http and TLS are parts of operating systems. Today, I’m fighting with gnutls trying to cross-compile it properly.

Before, I thought 100 Mb of source code is “a lot”. Today, I’m working on 6 Gb of sources.

Before, I’ve heard about TS files, which were mysterious creatures coming out from content providers and had to be transcoded ASAP into a more usual format. Today, TS is my common denominator, and I juggle with all these PATs, PMTs, SCTs, PCRs, PIDs and PTSes (per stream).

Before, I’ve thought 1Gb of video file is a full-length movie, and 8Mbps is a lot of a bitrate, and 720p is HD Video. Today, 1Gb is a short 5-minute Full HD clip.

Before, I feared of JavaScript, because you inevitable have to deal with HTML when working on JavaScript. Today, I fear of JavaScript, because when I cross-compile source code of WebKit with too much optimizations, its JavaScriptCore engine will expose all kinds of weird errors.

Before, I was ironical about how low-level the .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 were in comparison with Smalltalk. Eventually Microsoft has promoted C# to be a reasonably-high level programming language in .NET 4.0. Today I work in an environment where they think C++ is a high-level language, but is overly complicated, while the pure C is just the right level.

Before, I thought Windows 7 is on the verge of getting old. Today, my colleagues think Windows XP is not yet outdated.

So, in some aspects, this is a pretty much “upside down” experience, but I hope I will find my place in this new world, just like I’ve found myself in the web development seven years ago.

There are much less works describing security of some existing and popular Web 2.0 services (Facebook, Flickr, Google+, Picasa, Xing, LinkedIn, etc). But at least there are some.

What seems to be absolutely absent are white papers describing security (and more specifically, privacy issues) of the Web 2.0 ecosystem as a whole. Meanwhile, the situation there is quite remarkable. Fans of conspiracy theories would immediately assume that intelligence services of many countries are currently holding their breath observing rapid and voluntary de-privatization of many netizens; gathering all the information and preventing hackers from publishing their findings. Well, if it should be true, you are currently NOT reading this text, because it wasn’t successfully published. A more rational explanation would be, that just lazy me didn’t do any research before writing this blog post and has instead just bluntly asserted that there are no white papers on this topic to made his blog post more appealing.

Anyways.

To depict the current status quo, I’m going to show a couple of legal techniques to gather private information about a person from public sources.

1. Profile Scouting. This is obtaining links to public profiles of a target person, in a given Web 2.0 service:
                a) By known real name. Many Web 2.0 services allow (and even motivate) their visitors to search profiles by known real name. This step can be either performed manually for each Web 2.0 service using the corresponding search field, or automatically using pipl.com.
                b) By known username. Some Web 2.0 services display the username publicly, either in the web page itself, or at least as part of the public profile url. So, either public profile url can be constructed manually and checked if a given Web 2.0 service would return a profile or a 404 page, or some automated service can be used for this task, for example namechk.
                c) By known place of living, company, school or interests. Many Web 2.0 services allow to search using these kind of metadata; from the resulting list of persons the target person has to be found using some additional information, for example their known appearance (looking at the profile photo). A variation of this method is using groups or forums; for example, if a target person is interested in some dance type, and some Web 2.0 service offers a group, it is possible to find them by looking up the members of the group.
                d) By tagging. For example, a group photo on Facebook might be tagged with corresponding profiles; knowing appearance of the person of interest, it is possible to obtain their public profile. Another variation of this method is tagging of Flickr photos, where tags containing person names, cities and event names are used.

2. Profile Mapping. Having a profile in one Web 2.0 service, it is often easily possible to find out profiles of the same person in another Web 2.0 services; for example, by searching the same known real name. Many folks out there use the same username (or same couple of usernames) across several Web 2.0 services, so that their profiles can be mapped that way. The easiest way to map a profile is just a link, for example, it is possible to enter a link to Flickr account in the Facebook profile, and make it visible for everyone.

3. Social Graph Leveraging. This means, analyzing the “friends” of a target profile. This technique has the following shapes:
                a) Leveraging Faulty Security Concept. For example, the target person has closed their photos on Facebook for public viewing, but opened them for their friends. A friend of the target person has a publicly available timeline and comments on a photo of the target person. Faulty Facebook allows anybody to follow to this comment and to see the original photo, even though it ought to be visible only “for friends”. I believe, this bug Facebook has at least since I’ve joined it in 2009.
                b) Leveraging Different Privacy Settings. Let’s say the target person has closed their photos for public, but their friends haven’t. Some friend would publish their own photo, showing themselves, but also the target person (perhaps in the background or showing their back, but not necessarily so). Another variation of this technique is consuming the publicly available timeline of a friend of the target person, if it is known they interact closely in the real life (for example, study in the same university). By observing events, life style and mood of the target person’s friend, it is possible to conclude that the target person themselves should also have comparable mood, life style and perhaps participate in the same events.
                c) Second Level Scouting. Let’s say, the target person A doesn’t want to publicly befriend another person B (due to any reason whatsoever). But, A’s friends C, D and E don’t have this constraint and all have B in their friends. By analysing common friends of the friends, it is possible to find a missing link. This technique has quite limited usefulness, as your typical Facebook profile has 100 to 200 of friends, the total number of friends of friends can be around 10000 in the worst case, which is way too much to be analyzed manually, and I don’t know any ready-to-use software that would automate such a “friends scouting”.

Combining these three techniques sequentially, it is possible to achieve impressive results. For example, it should be possible to start looking up the target person A by searching their real name and current city on Flickr. By a lucky chance, one could find only a couple of photos, and most of them would depict the target person. One then could go to the Flickr profile of these photos’ author, person R, and map their profile to Facebook. On Facebook, by a lucky chance, one would be able not only read the public timeline and obtain more photos, but also discover a couple of friends of R who would live in the same city, for example persons H and D. By mapping of H’s profile to spaces.live.com it could be possible to obtain additional photos, and by mapping D’s profile on a Web 2.0 service for travel reports, one could obtain additional information about some events happened.

I do believe these techniques are quite legal, because they leverage only the data made publicly available by respective owners / copyright holders. If this should be “problematic”, then Google and other spiders should be even more questioned and investigated.

On the other hand, depending on exact situation and on what exactly the researcher will do with the information found, this might be anything from being perfectly moral to being absolutely cruel. In any case, often it is the case that information flow is not as intended by the target person, and that’s why I think this issue is a security issue, and has to be publicly discussed and addressed.

I don’t know any handy solution for that, besides of trying and opening my own social profiles to the most possible extent. If I cannot prevent this kind of information gathering, at least I want to lead and control it by providing the most of information myself “from the first hands” and thus minimizing any possible misunderstanding or misinterpretations. But I do see that this approach is not suitable for every kind of situation.

So what do you think about it? I’m kindly requesting for your comments.

Combining these high expectations with my perfectionistic wish to consume only the great art, it is no wonder that I would rarely enjoy (and go see) artworks currently popular in the press. I might find something great once in a year, often even more rarely.

When I say art, I mean books, movies, music, pictures, live performances, and any special kinds of modern art. And computer games. Games are mostly sport and hobby, but some of them are also art.

Great art can be “immersed” into, kind of daydreaming about the virtual world created by the artwork, and this helps to endure life. Computer games are by design perfect means for such escapism. In fact, reportages about WoW show how some specifically designed games can pose a real threat to ordered and healthy lifestyle. Besides, being a software developer myself, I can better than many others see how games are just meaningless crunchers of tons of bits and bytes.

So, hopefully, you’re impressed enough to hear me calling Mirror’s Edge the great art I was playing in in the last couple of months. At the time being I have finished the full game four times (on easy level, or hard level, without killing anyone, and with killing everyone), and also qualified in all speed runs, and earned tri-star rating on each time trial.

Yes, this took a lot of time – time I’d rather invested in a more reasonable things. But may be it has saved me from cracking up? And anyways, this wasn’t something I could control. And it still isn’t. I’m already waiting for the second game, which, unfortunately, seems to be delayed for unspecified time. And I’m extremely envious of the game creators; it was a once-in-a-lifetime-experience for them, and I also hope to become such professionally successful in my carreer.

If you don’t plan to play this game, this video will give you some impression about it. If you do plan to play, look at the following.

But it is interesting that this movement is quite old, and is still (or nevertheless) trendy, at least in some circles in the West. In other parts of the world it is even tradition or religion.

So, I was thinking about the vegetarian idea lately.

“In essence, we don’t want to cause harm and suffering to other living beings.“
“Yes. But why should I care about cows and chickens, while so many people starve to death, get raped or murdered, die from AIDS and cancer?“
“Well, actually you should also care about all those other cases. But, from where you are, it is hard to directly influence totalitarian regimes and failed states, or fight diseases. Not eating meat is so much easier.“
“Yes. But not eating meat does not necesserally translates into less suffering of animals. A typical restaurant would probably buy meat beforehand and throw it away if is not getting sold to the customers before its expiration date. Because customer flow fluctuates hugely from day to day, throwing away unused meat should be daily routine, so would the cook ever observe the effect of vegetarians and reduce the amount of meat ordered?“
“I don’t know. Perhaps he would, after reaching some threshold.“
“But yet again, suppose restaurants would order less meat. Will it translate into less animal suffering? Or will the animals still be grown and then burned to obtain cheap electricity? They already grow crops in Europe specifically for electricity production.“
“Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but at least you personally won’t be responsible for that.“
“But what about other effects caused to the world? Humanity is a huge, complicated and not well understood dynamic system. Changing one aspect of this system, let alone the aspect that remained unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, how can you be sure the effect will only be positive?“
“Hold on. Vegetarian movement exists also since ages, and expecting everybody would at once convert till next Friday is unrealistic. Currently, it is more a “personal decision of not participation”, and a faint try to improve world, one veggie at a time”.
“Well, speaking about personal decisions, I do feel empathy with cows and other mammals, much less of that with the birds, and feel almost nothing to fish, insects or other animals, not to mention plants. Don’t you think being a vegetarian means placing some quite arbitrary borders based solely on the fact I’m also a mammal?“
“You can be a vegan.“
“Hah, being vegan is so much harder than just not eating meat! Besides, vegans are still placing an arbitrary border based on the fact they are animals.“
“Don’t be so black and white. Solving the issue for mammals only is still better than not solving it at all.“
“Yes. But what about effects to my own health? The vegetarian-only diat is controversial, and if I ever crave for meat again and get the binge eating syndrome…“
“How about reducing the average amount of meat dishes you eat, but only in cases where it is comfortably possible, and during just one week?“
“Well, that will hardly make me feel liberated from the burden of being responsible for animal suffering, but at least it will give me some insight of a typical vegetarian life.”

And this is what I did during my week in London.

So far, the insights were not very groundbreaking:
* Generally, I could easily take a vegetarian dish at least once a day. Finding a vegetarian-friendly outfit (i.e. serving meat and vegetarian dishes) was not a problem at all; most of them in London are. I’ve also saw a couple of vegetarian-only restaurants without any special efforts from my side, but searching for them at specific times when I was fancy to eat would be too complicated. Looking for vegan-only restaurants would be totally complicated, even in London. It might be feasible, only if you live there, have found all the possibilities and plan your commute correspondingly.
* I once ordered something called “mozarella tomato sandwich” only to find unexpected ham inside. On some other occasion, I’ve ordered a “vegetable dish”; I have no idea what part of it was not vegetarian, if any. That means, if you want to be a consequent vegetarian, you have to communicate with the waiter much more than usual. This may or may not be an extra effort depending on your personality.
* In the Korean restaurant there was no vegetarian BBQ possibility, so I’ve ordered chicken, because my interest of trying the “well-known Korean BBQ” was greater than the empathy with chickens. Similarly, I’ve ordered a Fish Kofta (just because its funny name) and on another day the “English breakfast” because I was fancy to try it. At least I’ve ordered the vegetarian option, which means without meat, but with eggs.
* Eating so much lentils and beans was a challenge for my stomach.
* Madras or Vindaloo potatoes were a bit too simple for my desire to enjoy eating, and hummus I never especially liked, but vegetarian samosas with puff pastry as well as some Bangladesh dish name of which I forgot and some allegedly Sichuan food were delicious.

London is full of fashionable people. In the age group up to 30, I guess, at least 90% are clothed fashionably and/or stylishly. As for the middle age and older people, there are at least 60% who do so. In fact, you can spot a tourist in London by observing their unsuitable, cheap-looking or wrong sitting clothes (comparing to Londoner). Gents dress code in London is either business or smart casual, or something made from these styles by adding a little bit of controlled chaos. Generally, Londoner are even more obsessed with the uniform than Germans (as suits are, in fact, a uniform).

London is full of people, of various cultures, languages and background. It means a lot of positive and welcoming diversity, and plenty of wonderful and delicious world cuisines available around the corner. But also, unfortunately, it means some number of homeless people or families camping just in the centre of the square around Marble Arch. Truly interesting is therefore the feeling of safety I had. Never mind I have been to London a week after the riots, never mind there are signs “Beware of pickpockets” sometimes; I’ve never seen any destroyed property, any aggressive-looking people in dangerous amounts, nor any thieves. Well, I was visiting mostly the West End, the City and Greenwich, but I lived in Queensway and visited Soho, and Chinatown, and Brick Lane. Perhaps, I’ve just avoided ghettos by a lucky chance? As for pickpockets, having lived in Russia for 20+ years, I have had some experience with them, once stopping the hand of one of them trying to grab my month’s salary from my bag, and a couple of times observing them with their hands in some other people bags on a street market. Thus I believe I can sense their presence at times; in the huge London I haven’t seen anything more suspicious than in my sleepy tiny home town.

London is full of world wonders. You can see things that are not available in your home town, like some 3500 years old chinese pottery and bronze devices, and egyptian and assirian statues, and real bones of dinosaurs, and works of Da Vinci and one of the oldest remaining pages of the Bible. But also, the London architecture is a wonder by itself. We’ve landed at the Victoria station, and decided to walk to the Buckingham Palace. Just out of the door, we had to say “Wow” pointing at some building, and then passing that building, immediately another “Wow, look at these”, and then after couple of metres, yet again “Over there, how cool is that?”, and then we’re overloaded and stopped pointing, but not stopped wowing.

Speaking of metres, another rather unexpected impression I had is that the U.S.A. seemingly remains the only country where imperial measures are prevalent. I haven’t seen any sign or poster or other public information in London not using the standard measures. It is always metres, grams, litres, etc. The calorie intake label on foods is per 100gr. A lot of clocks use the 24h format.

They still have the left-side traffic though, and it takes its time to get used to. Even for a pedestrian, who just needs to decide which side of the street he must be on to get the bus in the desired direction. I wanted, but avoided renting a bike, partially due to this reason; I didn’t want to test my right-side reflexes in the London traffic. Speaking of which, it is terrible. There are in fact a lot of cyclists on the London streets; much more than I expected when looking at the traffic and the virtually absent bike lanes (comparing with Amsterdam, there are none). But, looking at the cyclists’ position on the bike, their uniform, their sporty racing bikes, and their faces, I don’t think they have enjoyed the ride. It was rather a fight, a rapid spurt from A to B, full of adrenaline and, perhaps, sometimes war stories they can later share with their buddies. I think, cycling in London should be a rather healthy activity, because of healing effects adrenaline causes to the body and because of the daily training to act quick but rationally under the effect of adrenaline. But, on the other hand, I’ve never seen a grandma on the bike, like plenty of them in the German streets. So, perhaps, the average lifetime expectation of a London cyclist is not to be envy of.

What you can envy Londoner of is definitely the food. I don’t care if there is such thing as English cuisine and what are its limits. I only care what you can get in a shop round the corner. And that’s much more diverse, intriguing, and delicious than in any other city I’ve yet been to. Ethiopian, Korean, and Bangladeshi cuisine I’ve tried for the first time in London. And as if it was not enough, they have Whole Foods Market stores in the city (five of them in fact. Why?! Why London has five stores, and the whole Germany none at all? That’s unfair); the greatest one having a dedicated cheese room and user comments on yelp along the lines “I want to live there”. In contrary to the tourist guides, I wouldn’t say eating in London is or has to be much more expensive. Those who eat on the Autobahnraststätte or in the Airports would pay more for worse food.

All in all, London is a perfect tourist destination, if you want to switch off from whatever feelings or problems pressing you; vibrant street life and clustered wonders would distract and entertain you. I would rather be careful when considering a permanent move or a long stay there though. You should never confuse tourism with emigration, as one of the Russian jokes goes. My extremely limited exposure to London leads to some unpleasant questions that have to be addressed. One of those is the health system. Would I feel myself comfortable living in a country where they sometimes call doctors “your health services provider”, and market their dental services in a same fashion one would advertize all-things-for-one-pound franchises?.. But yet again, answering such questions require much more exposure of the real everyday life in UK than I had.

To my shame, I forgot the name of my teacher; I only remember we were calling her “The Crow”, because she had a very round face, round big eyes, and when she had to blink, she always closed both eyes, waited quite a long time, and then opened them. She looked very british to me, for whatever reason (in fact, the first Brit I’ve ever shook hands I’ve met in person this Spring).

I doubt my teacher has met Brits either. She has graduated from a local university in my home town. And in the Soviet times, foreign visitors to my home town were if not outright not allowed, then at least “not welcomed”. So I think her exposure to British English was mostly watching some rare movies managed to pass through the censorship, or hearing some SW radio, and reading newspapers. Nevertheless, I believe her pronunciation was better than mine today, not to mention her Grammar.

Our English classes were conducted in a tiny classroom on the top floor. One of the lessons I can remember very well. It was –30 centigrade (-22 Fahrenheit) outside. Schools closed only at –35 and below in my home town, so we had classes. My mother has put on me a heavy-duty fur coat with at least an inch of hard-pressed fur,  and felt boots, and fur cap. I’ve lost quite a lot of my flexibility grades; it felt as if I was in a spacesuit. Outside, I couldn’t see anything in the first couple of minutes, because the bright sun was reflected by the white new snow.

The windows in our class room were completely frozen, so the blinding light from outside was transformed into hundreds of light spots, creating some kind of festive mood. The English teacher entered the classroom, and we all have stood up.

“Good morning, pupil!” she said in English, squinting.
“Good morning, teacher” we replied, also in English.
“Sit down!”

This part was always the same during all six years of English in the school, as well as the part followed it:

“Who is on duty today?” asked the teacher. I stood up again and said:
“I’m on duty today”.

Every day a new pupil was “on duty”, and yes, short answers like “I am” were considered wrong for some reason.

“Who is absent today?” asked me the teacher. The long sentence rule obviously applied to her either. I’ve looked around, detected absentees, and reported:

“X is absent today.“
“Is he ill?”

Normally, we had no idea why anybody else has not appeared, but during this procedure, we were not supposed to give any other answer than affirmative one. Well, we didn’t have corresponding vocabulary anyways. So, I already wanted to say “Yes he is,” but remembered I’d already seen X in the school on that day, so that would be an outright lie. Besides, the funny happy light spots everywhere on the walls, and the contrast of the biting cold outside and the overheated small classroom have motivated me to rebel against this procedure, for the first time. So I have said:

“No, it isn’t.“
“No, he isn’t,” automatically corrected me the teacher and then paused, realizing what had just happened.
“What happened to him?” asked she in Russian.
“I dunno, I’d already seen him in the school today,” answered I also in Russian. She paused a little more, and then asked again, in English, looking into my eyes:
“So. IS. HE. ILL. ?.“
“Yes, he is” I replied.
“Sit down!”

And our usual lesson started.

But this small rebellion was a first step into our further special relationship. From that time on, she cared a bit more about me than about other pupil: she gave me more complex/advanced tasks and corrected me more thoroughly.

Also, this was the first time I’ve realized and truly believed there ARE other people, the foreigners, who don’t speak Russian, but speak English. And that English is not just some set of magic spells or gibberish that we’re forced to repeat on every lesson, but is really a language, allowing to communicate your own ideas in a similar way Russian does.

In our lessons, we had texts about John and Mary, pupil, who were normally doing something in London or visiting Moscow. I had no idea about both of these cities. But, while I thought I have realistic possibilities to visit Moscow some day, I could never imagine I’ll ever be in London. All the time in the school, and many years after the school, London was a very abstract term for me, similar to people who died before my birth or ancient things that are already destroyed.

So here I come, London, for real. Let’s get in touch.

Завтра наше время закончится,
Разлетится драными клочьями.
Утром, криком вороньим порченным,
Заплету в клинок одиночество.

И сказал бы, что все наладится -
Только лгать тебе не умею.
Чуть шагнуть за порог успею,
Как следы мои ветром сгладятся.

Драгоценная, верная, чуткая,
Все отдал бы за счастье наше я -
Да никто в небесах не спрашивал,
Торговаться с богами хочу ли я…

Плакать некогда, не в чем каяться:
Что получено, то оплачено,
Не сыграть эту жизнь иначе нам –
Ведь иначе не жить, а маяться…

На дорогах судьбы распутица,
Грязь да холод – куда направиться?
Вправо, влево, вперед – что нравится,
Лишь назад, увы, не получится…

Завтра утром… спи, моя милая,
На плече моем до рассвета.
Пусть впитается в память это,
Пусть нас это сделает сильными…

Автор Everette

But recently I’ve stumbled upon an article that has immediately reasonated with me. I thought this article just can’t be wrong. And besides, it is also written in a very delicious style, so if you read Russian, please read the original.

Below is a shortened and helpless translation, which I did using Google translate and some manual editing. This article is written from the first person, who is a female psychologist living in Israel and is currently upbringing her two children.

Recently I was talking with an acquaintance about how and when to tell the child “no.” Her opinion puzzled me and made me think about the problem as a whole. How do we decide when to make concessions to your child? What makes us to ignore his repeated requests, or on the other extreme, to try to console our child with any price? Many parents are faced with similar issues, while being cried out loud at the ear.

“Mom, can I have a small piece of chocolate?“
“No, not now. Later.“
“Later when?“
“After dinner“
“But we just had breakfast!“
“Do not argue. I said “no“
“And ice cream?“
“No ice cream either“
“But why?“
“You already ate ice cream yesterday. That’s enough“
“I want today! Chocolate ice! And yesterday it was vanilla ice! Mom!“
“Stop begging. You’re always begging“
“Mom, please! Just one tiny bar of chocolate!“
“No”

The child is crying, throws herself on the ground, and kicks air. The “chocolate issue” grows into a big scandal. And the parent is furiously clasping his hands:

“It is impossible! Shut up this very second! Shut up, I said! Shame yourself! You’re ill-mannered, unbearable, I feel ashamed because of you! Stop it!”

My acquaintance said that children should regularly hear “no” at home for their own sake. After all, people and circumstances will not always play nice with them. A lot of things in life they will never get. Therefore, from the early age on, children should learn to accept restrictions and prohibitions. Without this skill their life will be very hard, when they’ll grow up.

This is certainly true. He who cannot accept refusals, at least partially, is doomed to suffer every second. After all, the word “no” is all around us in huge quantities. In the morning, it hides in the ringing of the alarm clock (who the hell had the brilliant idea to get up so early?), is hidden in the headlines (“Reducing the standard of living threatens the security of the population”), is winking from each occupied seat is our bus and from each highway lane of a traffic jam, the word “no” is embedded into the supermarket shelves, bank printouts, weather reports, restaurant menus, television programs… And, of course, if you become hysterical every time a cloud closes the sun, you will have to spend a hysterical life.

In addition, any parent wishes his child to be attractive for other people. But who would want to be friends with him if he cannot accept refusals? He will ask to borrow hundred bucks, they will say “no”, and he will throw himself hysterically to the ground!? In an effort to protect the child from such situations, parents try to explain their child that his wishes are not the only important thing in the world. There are other objective circumstances, the desire and abilities of other people, their personalities, their mood.

So, the lesson for the child to learn is very true: “pay attention, you’re not alone in the world.” But the question remains, how to give this lesson to the child. After all, what important is not to win in each and every “siege of chocolate bar”, but rather to make the word “no” normal, and not an extreme part of upbringing.

“The more I forbid, the better my child understands that the prohibition and rejection is part of the norm, just like success is. And therefore it will be easier for him to deal with teachers, bosses, etc later.” This is one possible position. And here’s another one: “He will get enough “no’s” in his future life, so I will try to give to my child so many “yes’es” I could, and he will grow confident and have high self-esteem that will help him to overcome difficulties”.

Of course, these are two extremes, and both are problematic. Zealous advocates of the word “no” raise trouble-makers, endlessly begging for something to be given. Or else, introverted and pessimistic melancholics, who don’t even try to ask for anything. And the parents giving the child everything and all costs, will get charismatic tyrants and egoists.

But even in between of the extremes is often unclear what exactly rules to follow.

The answer to this question can be divided into two parts: 1) in what cases to tell the child “no” and 2) how to behave after the word “no” has been pronounced.

In what cases you’ll have to tell the child the word “no”? I do not believe in education for the sake of education and do not believe in prohibition for the sake of prohibition. Parenting, in my opinion, occurs during the child’s interactions with real events and causes, and the prohibition makes sense only if it is reasonable. Any “no” must have a reason. A very specific and clear one, and of such kind that the adult would also apply to himself. “Because I said so”, “it is ridiculous”, and “even my grandmother forbade me” are not such a reason. They are vague, abstract and often not based on anything other than our memory and desire to injure the child at the same point, in which we ourselves were injured as a child. This desire is understandable, but it rarely leads to good results.

In a child’s daily life, there are much more restrictions than we tend to notice. He is not to decide about his daily activities, not to choose what to eat for breakfast (we all know the trick with the illusion of choice: “What do you want for breakfast, porridge or cereals?”, but a real choice is very rarely given to the child), he often does not want (but have to) to go to kindergarten, and even more so — to get up early for this kindergarten. Someone hates to go to bed at night, somebody does not like to sleep alone in a room or, alternatively, with three other children. The child is normally not being asked whether or not to give birth to his younger brothers. The weather outside and the times of the year do not consult with him. He cannot influence his parents’ divorce, visit of his relatives, to travel by car or by bus. He cannot adjust pressure of the seat belt, can’t control road nausea, the dress to put on, and the number of sandboxes available near the house, and has to accept principles of the kindergarten teacher, and the school choice… Yes, all parents try their best to take into account children’s interests and needs, but they are often very theoretical from the child’s point of view. Child’s life is full of restrictions.

When we now believe that by telling him “no” we will prepare him for the future, we have to remember that restrictions already constitute a big part of his life. The child learns to accept them on real-life material, and every minute of every day. And the “no” word we would say to him would be only a small part of this material. Therefore, if there is no specific, clear reason to refuse, just tell “yes”.

Positive experiences are even more important for human development than the negative experiences. Through our agreement and willingness to support him, the child learns about love, and obtains reserves of safety, understanding and warmth. The word “yes” does not need any reason. It is natural and normal; it is the basis of the relationship with the child.

On contrary, the word “no” must always have an exact cause. Otherwise, the child cannot understand what is happening, and therefore cannot learn from it. After all, we want to teach the child to understand, not (only) to obey.

Let’s return to the situation with chocolate. What could be the reasons not to buy it?

- Not enough money. This reason is unconditional, non-negotiable. We will not going to steal chocolate bars.

- The money is enough, but they are needed for another, more important things, like vegetables for dinner, milk for the younger brother, bracelet for a friend’s birthday. That one is a little tricky, because it requires setting clear priorities, but is in general reasonable.

- Medical restrictions: allergy to chocolate, diathesis, sore throat, diarrhea yesterday, bad teeth. From the child’s point of view, it is not fair, but the reason is also not discussable, even though it requires additional sympathy from the parents – we’ll talk about it in a minute.

- Inconvenience to buy: it is too hot to go to the shop, or mom is busy with other things. All of this fits into the concept of “pay attention, you’re not alone in the world.”

- Limitations of “common sense”: this chocolate is the third (eighth, hundredth) in a row. Arguments “its enough”, and “too much” the child does not understand and they look like carelessness. Therefore, an explanation in such cases must be specific, precise and exhaustive — in terms of the child, not the parent. And it can be reduced, in general, to those terms already mentioned: health, money, time, convenience.

- The punishment for past sins: “you just kicked me with your foot, so no chocolate until the evening.” Again, it is logical and reasonable, provided that the child understands what his fault is. “You hit your brother,” “tortured a kitten,” “did not make the homework” are clear and specific sins for which it is logical to lose chocolate. But “you are badly behaved”, “you’re a monster”, “always begging for something,” are incomprehensible and therefore meaningless explanations.

You can use the word “no” as a punishment, but the cause of punishment should be as specific as the chocolate. Otherwise it is an unequal exchange: the child does not get something visible, but is being punished for something abstract. And he won’t get the feeling of “I’m justly punished, it is necessary to draw conclusions, and behave differently,” but with the feeling “bad enough that no one understands me, but I don’t even get a chocolate bar.”

Even a simple mother’s “I do not want to go anywhere” it is the reason good enough to refuse chocolate. But only if the mother really does not want to go anywhere, rather than trying to teach the child the word “no.” Any refusal is justified if the cause is real in the eyes of a parent. And is not justified, if the goal of it is education for the sake of education. Children can smell a lie a mile away and instantly react to it.

Scandals and tantrums rarely occur where the parent is very confident. I’ve never met a child who, howling and rolling on the ground required to allow them to pour boiling water over themselves, to stick their face in a fire or to run back and forth across a busy highway. There are children who on their own trying to do all that, but none of them would be screaming to seek consent from us to do these actions. And it is not because children understand the theoretical risk, but because the parents are extremely confident: no, you are not allowed to pour the boiling water over yourself, stick your face in the fire or run through the busy highway, period, end of discussion. And the child doesn’t argue much either.

Children begin to argue when they feel the gap between what is said and what is internally believed by the parent. Loved ones are telepathic and can hear all the words unsaid. The child feels the parent state as a whole, not just the part that has been told. Mom says, “I do not buy you a candy bar, because the shop is too far away,” but the child hears: “For the chocolate to go is too far, but if you will be very whining, I will go, just to shut you up.”

The best way to help the child to perceive the word “no” is to be honest with it. If a parent’s sincere attitude is like “I would not want to buy you a candy bar, but if you are going to yell, I still buy it” — it is then better to go buy it and save time and effort. Trying to raise child’s ability to agree with the word “no”, we first need to track down and remove not only unreasonable prohibitions, but also those who in the end still lead to a chocolate bar. The result is the same, minus the hysterics and spent nerves on both sides.

But if the parent is confident that the chocolate will not be bought whatever comes, he should say his “no” with clear conscience, and then be ready for any reaction. Key is here: be ready for any reaction. You should not expect from a child that he immediately agrees to the logic and behaves reasonably, especially at the time frame of being disappointed by the refusal.

And so, the second part of the topic begins: how to behave yourself after the word “no” has been pronounced?

“Tanya, honey, you must understand: you cannot have more cake, you have a diathesis. You will get rash, if you eat that piece, so I’ll take it away now, because you will be very, very sick otherwise”…
“I want cake! Mom! I want cake again!“
“My dear, my child, how can you not understand — you cannot have cake, your skin will get rash, the temperature will…“
“Cake! Aaaaaaaah! Everybody gets a cake, and I don’t!“
“Our neighbor Bob also has diathesis, and also don’t get the cake.“
“I do not want to be like Bob! I want cake! I want cake now!“
“Tanya, I’ve already explained to you, you cannot have more cake, you have diathesis. What more do you want me to do? What else can I explain? How long will you torment me, wretched girl?”

Our main problem is our huge desire that the child agrees with us, that he behaves as a reasonable person, understands the reasons for refusal, stops yelling, nods and calms down.

And this, in fact, mixing two different things: a ban on the cake and the children’s acceptance of the ban. By not giving Tanya a cake, the mother wants to prevent poison getting into the body of a child. This goal is achieved with brilliance: the cake is left in the fridge, and Tanya is saved. And no matter how loud Tanya cries, the topic of diathesis is closed. But the topic of Tanya’s emotions remains. Just because cake is dangerous you don’t stop wanting it less. Explanations about the rash and about the Bob could not help her grief. Actually, nothing will help to heal this grief at the moment; it can only pass with the time. And the task of the mother is to help her to survive this incident. In her child’s life, a strong desire to get something has met the absolute impossibility to have it. Such situations are never easy, even for adults (only “the cake” varies with the age.)

It makes no sense to argue with the child in this situation. In a dispute Tanya only hears an attempt to convince her that she does not want a cake — but that is ridiculous, she knows better what she wants. Do not try to convince Tanya with logical arguments: this is our adult logic, and the child has his own. It would only show him how much we do not understand him.

Instead, a good strategy is a sympathetic verbalization of his emotions. Not only it will help your child to understand himself, but also it will give him the feeling that he is understood.

“I want cake! Mom! I want cake again!“
“Yes, I understand you do you really want a cake. And it is terribly sad that you have a diathesis. I removed the cake in the fridge, because another piece of it will make you ill. But you are already almost ill now, aren’t you? Because you want this cake so much, but it is not possible?“
“Ye-ah … I want the ca-a-a-ke … Yet another pie-e-ece“
”(Hugging) Too bad, I understand. Nobody has ever died because of not having cake, but it is especially so sad when you so keen to have it. I myself sometimes feel sad when I want something, but cannot get it. You too, huh?“
“Ye-ah … But Bob can have his cake!“
“Bob sometimes gets it, sometimes not. And then he doesn’t, he is also terribly sad. I heard him sobbing. Bass, can you imagine? Do you know how to cry bass?“
”(Squelching the nose) I don’t kno-o-o-w… I want cake …“
”(Continuing to hug) I understand that, my poor rabbit. You want the cake, but it is not possible to eat it, and it’s very, very sad. You know what? Tomorrow, as soon as it will be possible to eat the cake again, let’s have the best piece of it, with roses. What pieces do you like most – those with roses, or with plain cream?“
“That with a red rose…“
“Tomorrow at lunch we will have the piece with a red rose. I will ask Dad to reserve it for you, right? Should I tell him?“
“Yes, tell him… When do you tell him, now on the phone or in the evening when he comes?”

And the conversation changed the topic. Tanya came out of the dead-end “I want cake – I don’t get cake,” endured the pain, was understood and helped to overcome the tragedy — what else? After all, this is not a global tragedy, even for a 3-years old. You just have to help your small hero to survive this tragedy in the safety of warm, embracing arms. You want her to survive, not to stop, to shut up or to cancel.

Verbalization of child’s emotions requires from the parent focusing only on the child. Not on how dangerous diathesis is, not on parent’s emotions about the endless sobbing, not on the objective reality, not a neighbor Bob, who does not cry, but only on a small Tania, whose reality does not include the desired cake. Just like that: you feel bad — I’ll console you. You cry — I’ll hug you. Wherever you are, I’m with you. That’s it.