I went to Radio Shack to buy AV cables. All they had were the scam Monster Cables. Okay, that's fine to sell those, but where are the cables for the non-morons?
Seriously, they're total morons and have totally lost any niche they might have previously had over the last decade and a half.
They used to be actually useful to find obscure electronic parts. In small towns, the local Radio Shack was the only place you could buy resistors or DC voltage regulators or whatever. Yeah, they charged way too much for tiny things, but at least they actually sold those things if you needed them.
Not anymore. Now it's all TVs and cell phone accessories, in strangely empty stores. Seriously, what the hell is going on with their layouts? They manage to piss me off even more with that...it's one thing for stores not to carry stuff I need to buy, but at this point they're just giant empty spaces with cell phone kiosks. Hey, how about you take some of that empty space and sell, you know, some stuff I'd like to buy? Or even stuff I wouldn't...at least you'd be making the effort.
Circuit City's already failed for the same reason: They're not going to be able to compete with WalMart in crappy consumer electronics, and it is totally idiotic to try.
It is a science that is attempting to understand the universe inside a device that does math. It, like all science, is trying to figure out rules, but it, unlike other sciences, is trying to figure out human created rules.
And, in fact, creating those rules is part of the science. It's the only science that can tell engineers what sort of universe would be ideal to work in, and have them make it.
And it is also the only science that can be tested using pencil and paper, which is why it often gets confused with math. It's not math, it's science that lives in a universe where the 'laws of physics' are math, and hence the behavior can be calculated so perfectly using math that computer scientists just go ahead and do that.
'Science' education below a masters degree is not actually science, in any field. It is teaching concepts in the field.
You want to bitch about comp-sci, you show me a single bit of actual science done inside
any other 'science' class at that same level, except maybe physics. They're just teaching people the current state of the art, not teaching them science.
Oh, the chemistry people are just making weird concoctions and maybe doing a single test at the end to make sure they got the right thing? Isn't that really chemical engineering? The biology people are poking around inside dead animals? Hell, that's not even engineering!
And I suspect you're never read a computer scientific journal. What is in them is, indeed, science. They have articles with names like 'On Counting Homomorphisms to Directed Acyclic Graphs'
and 'Equivalence between Priority Queues and Sorting'.
And mathematics may lack rigor in 'the real world', but, rather sadly for your point, inside a computer is not the 'real world', but a created framework for math to function in. Math does, indeed, have rigor in there.
In fact, computer science is literally the science of 'the universe inside a device that can do math'. Asserting it doesn't have rigor is idiotic, computer science inside a computer is perhaps the most rigorous science at all. You can measure exactly what's going on, and predict exactly what will happen.
It is, in fact, so rigorous that often it's asserted not to be a science, but math, because, in theory, you often don't even have to test it. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'test'. You do have to test it, but since it is information, you can literally test it yourself without using a computer. Comp-sci is the science of a created universe, and you can create a universe to test in using your pencil and paper. But it is still a science.
Yes, that's exactly the problem with social sciences. They are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, and then they make observations and do real 'scientific method' stuff...using those assumptions to reach their conclusions!
It's just silliness, a mockery of science. Psychologists have not, for example, demonstrated that the 'subconscious' even exists at all, but will happily go around using it in theories.
Real science is built on observable facts. And, yes, at some point we stop being able to see, and theories go on past that...but psychology started with a bunch of theories that really no one has any evidence for.
Yes, now there's plenty of observation, but it's observations built on sand. Other sciences might have theories based on sand, but actually have a firm base.
The exception is behaviorists, like you said, which started their science with 'How do things react to other things?', aka actual observation, and apparently social psychology, which I've never heard of.
Computer science does, indeed, worry about those things. It is, in fact, one of the 'hardest' sciences out there, often being near indistinguishable from mathematics. (This is why computer scientists and mathematicians are the only people who care if P=NP or not.)
It's just 99% of computer work isn't computer science. 99% of computer work is, at best computer engineering. (Although I have to apologize to all real engineers out there. Possibly it's more like 'computer construction'.)
No, that's still dumb. At my mom's house, the hot water to the washer busted inside the wall, and the simplest and cheapest solution was to turn it off to the washer.
We lived that way for years. It's still that way at her house. No hot water to the machine at all.
Of course, I'd never been using hot water in the first place, but my mother seemed to have no problem with it. She, to this day, hasn't had it fixed.
Whatever the hell 'hot water' is for, it does not actually seem to be required under any circumstances that anyone would come across, unless you're swimming in dirty vegetable oil or something.
People need to stop falling for the nonsense. Put everything together, wash it in cold. It is water and soap, it cleans things, it does not care what it is cleaning.
Now, do be careful when you get something new and bright because it might 'leak' the color the first few times you wash it, and don't put it in with white clothes for a wash or two, but that is really all you ever need to do with sorting. (And, as a general note, don't forget to do this before you wear it at least once. Clothing should be washed before wearing.)
And I'm always a little baffled by the idea that towels are somehow dirtier than other clothing. No, I know they aren't perfectly clean, despite the joke about you cleaning them when you wipe off with them. When you shower, you end up with a lot of loose oil attached to soap attached to water that comes off on the towel...but seriously, that can't be dirtier than things you wore for 16 hours.
Schools I went to (prior to college) had one-way intercoms, the front office could use it to deliver messages to all rooms simultaneously. The rooms also had phones, so they could call the office or each other.
And I think I've explained that they stopped having those when they got two-way intercoms.
Well apparently your schools were more progressive than the ones I went to - as I mentioned I was in one of the poorest districts in my home state - because last I heard they still have phones in the classrooms.
There may, indeed, still be some incredibly old and outdated schools that still have phones instead of two-way intercoms.
Just like some might have, oh, asbestos insulation, or non-networked PCs in each classroom, or film projectors.
But the original statement was about most schools. I quote the sarcasm: 'Because of course most schools wouldn't have regular phones anywhere in the building.' And I said no, not normally, they do not.
Most schools, and by most I'm suspecting over 99%, do not have regular phones anywhere in the building except in the office and the teacher's lounge, and a few other places that are often in use when the front office is not manned, like a band room and gym. (And a few payphones if those are 'regular phones'.)
There might be a few weird schools or old schools, that do (and private schools, of course, can have anything they want.), but, no, in general, schools really do not have telephones in the classroom.
A few of my wife's friends are teachers. I will ask them next time I see them. Granted the district they teach in is approximately 1,000 miles from the one I attended for primary and secondary school.
Actually, just ask your wife. She'll know.
Or call up a local school, ask to speak to a specific teacher, ask them to connect you to their room. (It's about to be pre-planning, or possibly school's already started there. If it's already started, call about 3:30.) They will happily inform you they cannot do that, but they can pass a message to the teacher asking them to come to the office if you'll hold.
Seriously. You may remember telephones in classrooms, but they really did rip all those PBXs out and replace them with an intercom system that does the same thing. (But, and I can't stress this enough, cannot dial 911, because it cannot dial anyone, it just rings a bell in the office.)
And I know that as of last December the same could be said for the lecture halls and classrooms where I had undergraduate courses.
Colleges, not having two way intercoms, or in fact any intercoms at all, will always still have telephones.
But I have no idea why you're bringing colleges into this.
Did you have intercoms? Because they stopped including phones when they started building schools with two-way intercoms, and usually ripped them out of existing schools. (Or, more accurately, used the existing phone cable for them.)
So, strictly speaking, every classroom I was in had a 'phone', in a sense. It was just a giant speakerphone that answered automatically, and a button that could only call the front office.
I graduated high school 12 years ago, before cell phones became an issue. What schools had before that time isn't really relevant to this discussion about cell phones. In the normal world, most schools stopped having telephones in classrooms more than a decade ago.
Possibly more than two decades ago, because I remember my elementary school not having them. (My mother was a special ed teacher at that same school.)
I know, it sounds crazy, especially as teachers often have to call parents, but go and ask a teacher if she has phone in her classroom. Go and ask. She won't.
If she does, ask if people could call 911 from them. Betcha they can't, not without some special code that students don't know.
Prisons with problems with cellphone use should stop blaming prisoners and start dealing with their out-of-control guards who are smuggling in god-knows-what.
That's why you need strict rules, not all-encompassing rules.
For example, if I were in charge of a school, I would require them to be on vibrate or off the entire time on campus. Anyone's phone ring anywhere inside the school, it gets taken away for the day. And, heck, let's remind people during morning announcements. (This is to help make sure people don't forget to turn them on vibrate in class at all. Nope, can't forget, because you can't have them make noise in the entire building. Walk in in the morning, turn your cell phone to vibrate, leave it there.)
Likewise, I would ban interacting with a phone in any way during class time. No, you can't 'look at the time' (That's what the wall clocks are for!) and really be reading an IM.
No touching your phone at all, or having it out of your bookbag or pocket. Any phones that are seen in class are taken away.
Nice, strict rules, but they allow non-disruptive use of phones between classes.
Oh, and anyone talking about using them as part of the curriculum is on crack. Teachers already have students work in groups but, and this is the important thing, those students are already in the class together. They don't need to call each other in class. Um, duh.
Yeah, I'm getting a little confused about this nonsense too.
For the record: No school would ever get in the slightest bit of trouble for making a rule that no one can use a cell phone, in any way, even to just look at the screen, during class, and every student who does so must surrender the phone until the end of the day. Period.
Only in crazyland are parents somehow prohibiting this. If all these 'lawyers' or 'parents' are getting the schools in trouble, it should be easy to find a single court case otherwise.
And, like you point out with that 'strip search' crap...if parents could make that much trouble about cell phones, you think they'd be making some trouble about the idiotic 'zero tolerance' drug policies, which keep children from not only carrying about prescription medication, but also perfectly legal OTC stuff they themselves can walk into any drug store and purchase.
For people who don't know what we're talking about, the Supreme court heard a case where a school strip searched a girl on hearsay evidence that she possessed aspirin, which, last I checked, was entirely legal for children to purchase and use.
And it's not just stupidity, it's a safety issue. There are people so allergic to common things, like bee stings or whatever, and can go into anaphylactic shock and die, that they carry around EpiPens to, you know, keep from dying.
Or, at least, they do that at all times except for on school grounds, because apparently schools would rather their students die.
There's been all sorts of outrage over this (personally, I'm waiting for someone to die because they weren't allowed to carry life-saving medication on them.), and yet schools haven't stopped this idiocy...
And yet somehow they can't ban cell phone use cause parents might get upset? Riiiight.
Most school don't have phones all over the building. I'll vaguely trust you that your school does, but a hell of a lot of them don't have any phones whatsoever. (Teachers use the intercom to contact the office.)
And, yeah, have fun finding out that four digit code when your teacher has a stroke during class.
Okay, I don't know what the hell school all you idiots are going to, but in reality, schools actually don't have phones in them anywhere except the office and teachers lounges and stuff.
There are a bunch of delusional people here running around thinking there are damn telephones in the halls and classrooms of school. Um, no, not normally.
We're at the point in society where people should know how to leave a message on a damn answering machine. Hell, we stopped having the 'http://' on URLs in ads and business cards five years ago, but somehow people have forgotten how to operate an answering machine/voice mail after them being common for 25 years!
Also, we don't need to be informed someone can't answer the phone, but to leave a message and he'll get back to you. First of all, the voice mail message does not magically know that that is true...maybe he can answer it, and just didn't. Maybe he's dead, and won't return your call ever. Maybe he just doesn't fucking like you. Stop telling me nonsensical shit you don't actually know, you machine. Just record the damn message.
When an answering machines picks up, I should hear, in most cases, be something like "This is John Smith's phone. *beeeep*".
And the only reason there should be any message at all is to confirm we have the right phone number.
I didn't say I hate him. I said his books were as factually inaccurate.
His 'research' is just random nonsense with names and dates and words all thrown in he doesn't understand at all.
Hell, the work that makes the most sense is The da Vinci Code, and that's because the facts and story were ripped off from a book of pseudohistory claptrap called Holy Blood, Holy Grail, so at least these facts were moderately consistent in what could have happened.
Note when I talk about 'facts' like that, I'm not talking about actual fictional things like Jesus being married, I'm talking about the framework of facts that he builds his fiction around.
Like in my parody, the idea that Shakespeare's play were written by someone else, and there's a conspiracy to hide it, is an interesting concept to write a book around. Maybe they were written by Pope Gregory XIII, or Queen Elizabeth I. Who knows. Tell us some exciting story, I'm okay with it.
But the idea that they were written by playwright Arthur Miller, who was born in 1915, and the conspiracy was created by the Actors' Equity Association, which was founded in 1913, is sheer total gibberish.
And it's the sort of gibberish that Dan Brown would just use in his books with no mention or realization it makes no sense. No handwave or anything, he'd just assume that we'd be okay with the concept that Shakespeare's plays were written in 1935 or whenever. Because he doesn't know anything about what he writes.
It's not for nothing he has an expression named after him.
I don't think I've ever seen a "Keep Moving" sign.
Maybe it's a Georgia thing. They show up all the time at traffic lights where they split off the right lane and curve it to join up with the other road.
This makes that lane totally, and legally, avoid the traffic light, but people tend to assuming it's a 'right on red' and slow down, and attempt to 'yield' to oncoming traffic. if we don't tell them to keep moving. (Although the damn white poles they like to stick in the road to keep people from changing lanes probably would work better, as people could intuitively see that no one can be coming in their lane, because they're fenced in!)
Also I've seen a 'keep moving' turning into shopping center circling roads where they, in defiance off all traffic expectations, have traffic on that road stop, and traffic turning onto that road have the right of way and should 'keep moving'. Even if they're turning left.
This really trips people up who aren't paying attention. The people traveling in circles stop correctly, and the people trying to turn onto the circle, if they miss the 'keep moving' sign, also stop and wonder what the hell is going on.
Yeah, and EnigMail over in Thunderbird. Likewise the 'minimize to tray' addons somehow make the Windows calls to do that, although I think they're calling already existing functions instead of providing a DLL with them.
I'm not entirely sure how they do any of that.
So it would be more accurate to say that most Firefox extensions are Javascript. 99% of them. (They have to be, to work on multiple OSes.)
Slashdot Mirror
It would be Kilohard.
I went to Radio Shack to buy AV cables. All they had were the scam Monster Cables. Okay, that's fine to sell those, but where are the cables for the non-morons?
Seriously, they're total morons and have totally lost any niche they might have previously had over the last decade and a half.
They used to be actually useful to find obscure electronic parts. In small towns, the local Radio Shack was the only place you could buy resistors or DC voltage regulators or whatever. Yeah, they charged way too much for tiny things, but at least they actually sold those things if you needed them.
Not anymore. Now it's all TVs and cell phone accessories, in strangely empty stores. Seriously, what the hell is going on with their layouts? They manage to piss me off even more with that...it's one thing for stores not to carry stuff I need to buy, but at this point they're just giant empty spaces with cell phone kiosks. Hey, how about you take some of that empty space and sell, you know, some stuff I'd like to buy? Or even stuff I wouldn't...at least you'd be making the effort.
Circuit City's already failed for the same reason: They're not going to be able to compete with WalMart in crappy consumer electronics, and it is totally idiotic to try.
How the hell do you reflash your BIOS without using your BIOS?
Computer science is a science.
It is a science that is attempting to understand the universe inside a device that does math. It, like all science, is trying to figure out rules, but it, unlike other sciences, is trying to figure out human created rules.
And, in fact, creating those rules is part of the science. It's the only science that can tell engineers what sort of universe would be ideal to work in, and have them make it.
And it is also the only science that can be tested using pencil and paper, which is why it often gets confused with math. It's not math, it's science that lives in a universe where the 'laws of physics' are math, and hence the behavior can be calculated so perfectly using math that computer scientists just go ahead and do that.
'Science' education below a masters degree is not actually science, in any field. It is teaching concepts in the field.
You want to bitch about comp-sci, you show me a single bit of actual science done inside any other 'science' class at that same level, except maybe physics. They're just teaching people the current state of the art, not teaching them science.
Oh, the chemistry people are just making weird concoctions and maybe doing a single test at the end to make sure they got the right thing? Isn't that really chemical engineering? The biology people are poking around inside dead animals? Hell, that's not even engineering!
And I suspect you're never read a computer scientific journal. What is in them is, indeed, science. They have articles with names like 'On Counting Homomorphisms to Directed Acyclic Graphs' and 'Equivalence between Priority Queues and Sorting'.
And mathematics may lack rigor in 'the real world', but, rather sadly for your point, inside a computer is not the 'real world', but a created framework for math to function in. Math does, indeed, have rigor in there.
In fact, computer science is literally the science of 'the universe inside a device that can do math'. Asserting it doesn't have rigor is idiotic, computer science inside a computer is perhaps the most rigorous science at all. You can measure exactly what's going on, and predict exactly what will happen.
It is, in fact, so rigorous that often it's asserted not to be a science, but math, because, in theory, you often don't even have to test it. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'test'. You do have to test it, but since it is information, you can literally test it yourself without using a computer. Comp-sci is the science of a created universe, and you can create a universe to test in using your pencil and paper. But it is still a science.
*clap clap clap*
Yes, that's exactly the problem with social sciences. They are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, and then they make observations and do real 'scientific method' stuff...using those assumptions to reach their conclusions!
It's just silliness, a mockery of science. Psychologists have not, for example, demonstrated that the 'subconscious' even exists at all, but will happily go around using it in theories.
Real science is built on observable facts. And, yes, at some point we stop being able to see, and theories go on past that...but psychology started with a bunch of theories that really no one has any evidence for.
Yes, now there's plenty of observation, but it's observations built on sand. Other sciences might have theories based on sand, but actually have a firm base.
The exception is behaviorists, like you said, which started their science with 'How do things react to other things?', aka actual observation, and apparently social psychology, which I've never heard of.
Computer science does, indeed, worry about those things. It is, in fact, one of the 'hardest' sciences out there, often being near indistinguishable from mathematics. (This is why computer scientists and mathematicians are the only people who care if P=NP or not.)
It's just 99% of computer work isn't computer science. 99% of computer work is, at best computer engineering. (Although I have to apologize to all real engineers out there. Possibly it's more like 'computer construction'.)
Several questions:
You are currently attending these schools?
They are public grade schools?
Do the phones actually work?
How old is this school?
Do you have an intercom in the room?
Is it two-way?
No, that's still dumb. At my mom's house, the hot water to the washer busted inside the wall, and the simplest and cheapest solution was to turn it off to the washer.
We lived that way for years. It's still that way at her house. No hot water to the machine at all.
Of course, I'd never been using hot water in the first place, but my mother seemed to have no problem with it. She, to this day, hasn't had it fixed.
Whatever the hell 'hot water' is for, it does not actually seem to be required under any circumstances that anyone would come across, unless you're swimming in dirty vegetable oil or something.
People need to stop falling for the nonsense. Put everything together, wash it in cold. It is water and soap, it cleans things, it does not care what it is cleaning.
Now, do be careful when you get something new and bright because it might 'leak' the color the first few times you wash it, and don't put it in with white clothes for a wash or two, but that is really all you ever need to do with sorting. (And, as a general note, don't forget to do this before you wear it at least once. Clothing should be washed before wearing.)
And I'm always a little baffled by the idea that towels are somehow dirtier than other clothing. No, I know they aren't perfectly clean, despite the joke about you cleaning them when you wipe off with them. When you shower, you end up with a lot of loose oil attached to soap attached to water that comes off on the towel...but seriously, that can't be dirtier than things you wore for 16 hours.
Schools I went to (prior to college) had one-way intercoms, the front office could use it to deliver messages to all rooms simultaneously. The rooms also had phones, so they could call the office or each other.
And I think I've explained that they stopped having those when they got two-way intercoms.
Well apparently your schools were more progressive than the ones I went to - as I mentioned I was in one of the poorest districts in my home state - because last I heard they still have phones in the classrooms.
There may, indeed, still be some incredibly old and outdated schools that still have phones instead of two-way intercoms.
Just like some might have, oh, asbestos insulation, or non-networked PCs in each classroom, or film projectors.
But the original statement was about most schools. I quote the sarcasm: 'Because of course most schools wouldn't have regular phones anywhere in the building.' And I said no, not normally, they do not.
Most schools, and by most I'm suspecting over 99%, do not have regular phones anywhere in the building except in the office and the teacher's lounge, and a few other places that are often in use when the front office is not manned, like a band room and gym. (And a few payphones if those are 'regular phones'.)
There might be a few weird schools or old schools, that do (and private schools, of course, can have anything they want.), but, no, in general, schools really do not have telephones in the classroom.
A few of my wife's friends are teachers. I will ask them next time I see them. Granted the district they teach in is approximately 1,000 miles from the one I attended for primary and secondary school.
Actually, just ask your wife. She'll know.
Or call up a local school, ask to speak to a specific teacher, ask them to connect you to their room. (It's about to be pre-planning, or possibly school's already started there. If it's already started, call about 3:30.) They will happily inform you they cannot do that, but they can pass a message to the teacher asking them to come to the office if you'll hold.
Seriously. You may remember telephones in classrooms, but they really did rip all those PBXs out and replace them with an intercom system that does the same thing. (But, and I can't stress this enough, cannot dial 911, because it cannot dial anyone, it just rings a bell in the office.)
And I know that as of last December the same could be said for the lecture halls and classrooms where I had undergraduate courses.
Colleges, not having two way intercoms, or in fact any intercoms at all, will always still have telephones.
But I have no idea why you're bringing colleges into this.
No, dialing 9 gets you an outside line. It doesn't magically enable long distance calls.
That's why I personally shot up a school this morning.
Did you have intercoms? Because they stopped including phones when they started building schools with two-way intercoms, and usually ripped them out of existing schools. (Or, more accurately, used the existing phone cable for them.)
So, strictly speaking, every classroom I was in had a 'phone', in a sense. It was just a giant speakerphone that answered automatically, and a button that could only call the front office.
I graduated high school 12 years ago, before cell phones became an issue. What schools had before that time isn't really relevant to this discussion about cell phones. In the normal world, most schools stopped having telephones in classrooms more than a decade ago.
Possibly more than two decades ago, because I remember my elementary school not having them. (My mother was a special ed teacher at that same school.)
I know, it sounds crazy, especially as teachers often have to call parents, but go and ask a teacher if she has phone in her classroom. Go and ask. She won't.
If she does, ask if people could call 911 from them. Betcha they can't, not without some special code that students don't know.
Prisons with problems with cellphone use should stop blaming prisoners and start dealing with their out-of-control guards who are smuggling in god-knows-what.
That's why you need strict rules, not all-encompassing rules.
For example, if I were in charge of a school, I would require them to be on vibrate or off the entire time on campus. Anyone's phone ring anywhere inside the school, it gets taken away for the day. And, heck, let's remind people during morning announcements. (This is to help make sure people don't forget to turn them on vibrate in class at all. Nope, can't forget, because you can't have them make noise in the entire building. Walk in in the morning, turn your cell phone to vibrate, leave it there.)
Likewise, I would ban interacting with a phone in any way during class time. No, you can't 'look at the time' (That's what the wall clocks are for!) and really be reading an IM.
No touching your phone at all, or having it out of your bookbag or pocket. Any phones that are seen in class are taken away.
Nice, strict rules, but they allow non-disruptive use of phones between classes.
Oh, and anyone talking about using them as part of the curriculum is on crack. Teachers already have students work in groups but, and this is the important thing, those students are already in the class together. They don't need to call each other in class. Um, duh.
Yeah, I'm getting a little confused about this nonsense too.
For the record: No school would ever get in the slightest bit of trouble for making a rule that no one can use a cell phone, in any way, even to just look at the screen, during class, and every student who does so must surrender the phone until the end of the day. Period.
Only in crazyland are parents somehow prohibiting this. If all these 'lawyers' or 'parents' are getting the schools in trouble, it should be easy to find a single court case otherwise.
And, like you point out with that 'strip search' crap...if parents could make that much trouble about cell phones, you think they'd be making some trouble about the idiotic 'zero tolerance' drug policies, which keep children from not only carrying about prescription medication, but also perfectly legal OTC stuff they themselves can walk into any drug store and purchase.
For people who don't know what we're talking about, the Supreme court heard a case where a school strip searched a girl on hearsay evidence that she possessed aspirin, which, last I checked, was entirely legal for children to purchase and use.
And it's not just stupidity, it's a safety issue. There are people so allergic to common things, like bee stings or whatever, and can go into anaphylactic shock and die, that they carry around EpiPens to, you know, keep from dying.
Or, at least, they do that at all times except for on school grounds, because apparently schools would rather their students die.
There's been all sorts of outrage over this (personally, I'm waiting for someone to die because they weren't allowed to carry life-saving medication on them.), and yet schools haven't stopped this idiocy...
And yet somehow they can't ban cell phone use cause parents might get upset? Riiiight.
Most school don't have phones all over the building. I'll vaguely trust you that your school does, but a hell of a lot of them don't have any phones whatsoever. (Teachers use the intercom to contact the office.)
And, yeah, have fun finding out that four digit code when your teacher has a stroke during class.
Okay, I don't know what the hell school all you idiots are going to, but in reality, schools actually don't have phones in them anywhere except the office and teachers lounges and stuff.
There are a bunch of delusional people here running around thinking there are damn telephones in the halls and classrooms of school. Um, no, not normally.
Forget calling for help, half the issue is the ability to record what's going on.
The logical conclusion is that school shootings cause cell phones.
Sure, it would be a minor inconvenience when they have a break, but their classrooms and offices likely already have phones in them.
If you believe classrooms have phones in them, you are delusional. If you believe teachers have offices, you are even more delusional.
Teachers used to have to go to the office to make phone calls, and even then they could only make local ones or use a calling card.
We're at the point in society where people should know how to leave a message on a damn answering machine. Hell, we stopped having the 'http://' on URLs in ads and business cards five years ago, but somehow people have forgotten how to operate an answering machine/voice mail after them being common for 25 years!
Also, we don't need to be informed someone can't answer the phone, but to leave a message and he'll get back to you. First of all, the voice mail message does not magically know that that is true...maybe he can answer it, and just didn't. Maybe he's dead, and won't return your call ever. Maybe he just doesn't fucking like you. Stop telling me nonsensical shit you don't actually know, you machine. Just record the damn message.
When an answering machines picks up, I should hear, in most cases, be something like "This is John Smith's phone. *beeeep*".
And the only reason there should be any message at all is to confirm we have the right phone number.
I didn't say I hate him. I said his books were as factually inaccurate.
His 'research' is just random nonsense with names and dates and words all thrown in he doesn't understand at all.
Hell, the work that makes the most sense is The da Vinci Code, and that's because the facts and story were ripped off from a book of pseudohistory claptrap called Holy Blood, Holy Grail, so at least these facts were moderately consistent in what could have happened.
Note when I talk about 'facts' like that, I'm not talking about actual fictional things like Jesus being married, I'm talking about the framework of facts that he builds his fiction around.
Like in my parody, the idea that Shakespeare's play were written by someone else, and there's a conspiracy to hide it, is an interesting concept to write a book around. Maybe they were written by Pope Gregory XIII, or Queen Elizabeth I. Who knows. Tell us some exciting story, I'm okay with it.
But the idea that they were written by playwright Arthur Miller, who was born in 1915, and the conspiracy was created by the Actors' Equity Association, which was founded in 1913, is sheer total gibberish.
And it's the sort of gibberish that Dan Brown would just use in his books with no mention or realization it makes no sense. No handwave or anything, he'd just assume that we'd be okay with the concept that Shakespeare's plays were written in 1935 or whenever. Because he doesn't know anything about what he writes.
It's not for nothing he has an expression named after him.
I don't think I've ever seen a "Keep Moving" sign.
Maybe it's a Georgia thing. They show up all the time at traffic lights where they split off the right lane and curve it to join up with the other road.
This makes that lane totally, and legally, avoid the traffic light, but people tend to assuming it's a 'right on red' and slow down, and attempt to 'yield' to oncoming traffic. if we don't tell them to keep moving. (Although the damn white poles they like to stick in the road to keep people from changing lanes probably would work better, as people could intuitively see that no one can be coming in their lane, because they're fenced in!)
Also I've seen a 'keep moving' turning into shopping center circling roads where they, in defiance off all traffic expectations, have traffic on that road stop, and traffic turning onto that road have the right of way and should 'keep moving'. Even if they're turning left.
This really trips people up who aren't paying attention. The people traveling in circles stop correctly, and the people trying to turn onto the circle, if they miss the 'keep moving' sign, also stop and wonder what the hell is going on.
Yeah, and EnigMail over in Thunderbird. Likewise the 'minimize to tray' addons somehow make the Windows calls to do that, although I think they're calling already existing functions instead of providing a DLL with them.
I'm not entirely sure how they do any of that.
So it would be more accurate to say that most Firefox extensions are Javascript. 99% of them. (They have to be, to work on multiple OSes.)