Because racism isn't dead. Texas was founded partially on slavery, it's mentioned in the Texas Declaration of Independence (against Mexico). It joined the US as a slave state. Racism is in its blood. And racism doesn't vanish quickly, it keeps simmering under the surface even if there are laws against the old ways.
But most modern racism sort of fits more into a class division. It gets institutionalized. The poor areas versus middle and upper class areas of a town always seem to be predominantly black or hispanic these days. So the class divisions very often coincide with racial divisions. However if it's purely just a class divide then if someone of low class dresses up they should be able to fit in, head into a nice restaurant maybe. But it's not uncommon for a middle class black person to cause all heads to turn when showing up at that same nice restaurant.
So the racism just adds a dimension to the classism. It gets framed as classism though, because at least we're finally to the point where being publically racist is frowned upon.
It's segregation. It has been shown over and over that segregation into poor versus middle and upper class will result in large achievement gaps. And in most places with poor/rich disparities this equates into black vs white segregation rather than just income based. When integration hs been tried, it HAS greatly reduced the achievement gaps, and not by bringing the down scores of white kids but by bringing up scores if black kids.
But integration eventually stops being tried because of "white flight" or other efforts to force politicians to stop it. Poor people go to school where they live. Rich people always shop around for schools, private school often. Middle class will also shop around for schools. They choose neighborhoods with "good" schools. If they can't afford the best neighborhoods then some middle class will use private schools also. If a politician brings up integration the rich/middle class freak out, they will complain that they chose a good neighborhood and it's not fair to degrade it by bringing kids from schools with lots of violence.
I know people up in San Francisco complaining about high cost of private schools and I ask why they don't use public schools instead of shunning them and making them even worse. They just say that they were assigned a "bad" school so they have "no choice". Guess what, those kids in that poor school also have no choice.
No matter how many times someone claims separate-but-equal works there never is real equality. Poor schools don't get the best teachers, they don't even get enough money to maintain their buildings properly. This is to all appearances a seperate and highly unequal state. But it has been shown that when disadvantaged students get into better schools that they do perform better.
So when it comes to a gifted program, there will never be money in poor schools for this sort of thing. They're not even going to offer any of the tests to see if students are gifted or not.
If it's not racist it is at the very least classist, and in a country where we pretend we are all equal. It doesn't even have to be overt racism, because I can already hear people objecting that they aren't racist, and they're quite friendly with the three of four black students from their kid's private school. But segregation is racist, even if factors that caused the segregation weren't overtly discriminating on race. The system is racist if black students are given no opportunity to leave their failing schools. And let's face it, this is Texas.
I consider $10-20 when you go over to be a very large charge. When my home ISP is $50 with a 250GB cap, then the phones are definitely overcharging for the data. I've got the minimal plan of 300mb (I'd prefer no data at all, but they refuse to hook up a smart phone without it). Yes, I know some people are paying regularly $100 a month for their smart phones, but that's absurdly high in my book, they're in the same category of people who think $100/mo for cable is reasonable.
It's AT&T and the rules are absurd: Overage charge in increments of $20 per 300MB on a 300MB plan, or 1GB at $15 per GB on other plans. They don't just bump you up to the next overpriced data plan. So yes, I consider those fees excessive.
And what's "underage"? They charge you for NOT using enough data?
No, not a problem. If I'm "wandering" then I'm not using my phone. I've got 300mb a month, on purpose. I've got wifi and home and at work so why pay a lot of money for data I don't need. It's not that hard to just stop using the phone when wandering.
Well, it's mobile data, and it's hard to compare 3g/4g phone internet to home computer internet. Even from the same company you get different data caps, different bandwidth caps, different prices per GB, etc. You can't easily use the phone to gateway you to the internet as many companies disallow this. But with wi-fi it's very easy to have your phone get to the internet through your ISP, or your employer's ISP, etc.
Metered is important in a lot of ways because there is not enough internet to go around most places. It only works now because most people don't use that much internet. Streaming video is great, until everyone does it and there's not enough bandwidth to go around (especially bad when you're sharing the wires with your neighbors).
You'd think. But it is surprisingly easy to such up a lot of data and not know it. You have to go to a significant amount of extra work with later phones/versions to disable all mobile data usage that is on by default. Google by default wants to back up all your settings/photos/app-data to the cloud. By default downloading apps and updates is done with mobile or wifi and it's an extra action to make it wifi only (something a novice isn't going to be aware of). Yes, you don't download apps that much, but you do in the first few weeks you own the phone. I've also seen Android warn me when I flip off mobile data in some places that I am reducing functionality, which is a sort of message that would scare away the novices from attempting this.
I have used 0.9GB on wi-fi for September, and I'm not a heavy user. For someone naive that might all be on the mobile data plan instead.
But the same sort of things seem to happen on Android. A lot of stuff is turned on by default on Android and I was surprised to see a big jump in data usage the first day that I had my phone; which is bad because I have the smallest dataplan allowed. A coworker yesterday showed off his new Android phone and then was startled when he saw how much data had actually be used in just three days, after which he started turning off lots of stuff.
Yes, I think some of this may be due to the extra work the low paid sales people do in the store and the default configurations they use (like automatically backing up everything to the cloud, sending usage data to Google, etc). But Jellybean did turn off some features as well which seemed odd - for example, turning off mobile data is now harder to do, as apps and widgets aren't allowed to do that anymore. When you do turn off some power or data hungry features you get warnings that you may lose functionality. They're pushing the customers to the data first and wifi second.
But an introverts wouldn't have the impulse to post to 500 people in the first place. Why would they bother? There are some adults that can't figure this out; they think that Johnny doesn't have enough friends, so he's dragged to the playground, forced to join drama club, enrolled in sports, all in a vain attempt to "fix" the problem of being an introvert.
But most of those aren't "friends". I'm not on Facebook, but I've got a set of strangers who follow me on Google+, and I'm not mislead into think that they're friends. Similarly most of the people I know on Facebook at "friends" with lots of people just to keep in contact, old class mates, past coworkers, etc. Not friends really, but people they know. One step up from acquaintances but not yet to the level of sending the Christmas newsletter to.
Loyalty to state? What about just basic morality? You kill a hooker, then you're better off locked up anyway. Three meals a day, exercise program, opportunity for romance.
Maybe, but it was a very short time ago when we still had Christian terrorism ("oh, but those weren't real Christians, they don't count!"). And it's not a big stretch of the imagination to see it again in the future. Anywhere there is an insurgency or civil war, you're often going to see one side claim that it's because of their religion, mostly because people can't separate ethnicity/culture from their religion.
I think in general more console games are intended for sharing (ie, all looking at same screen). But more PC games are intended as single player, or playing with asshat strangers online.
I got one PC game that someone recommended to me. But it's difficult since you can't do much of anything unless you have a second player with a second controller. Sadly, this was before Steam offered refunds.
Slashdot Mirror
Because racism isn't dead. Texas was founded partially on slavery, it's mentioned in the Texas Declaration of Independence (against Mexico). It joined the US as a slave state. Racism is in its blood. And racism doesn't vanish quickly, it keeps simmering under the surface even if there are laws against the old ways.
But most modern racism sort of fits more into a class division. It gets institutionalized. The poor areas versus middle and upper class areas of a town always seem to be predominantly black or hispanic these days. So the class divisions very often coincide with racial divisions. However if it's purely just a class divide then if someone of low class dresses up they should be able to fit in, head into a nice restaurant maybe. But it's not uncommon for a middle class black person to cause all heads to turn when showing up at that same nice restaurant.
So the racism just adds a dimension to the classism. It gets framed as classism though, because at least we're finally to the point where being publically racist is frowned upon.
It's segregation. It has been shown over and over that segregation into poor versus middle and upper class will result in large achievement gaps. And in most places with poor/rich disparities this equates into black vs white segregation rather than just income based. When integration hs been tried, it HAS greatly reduced the achievement gaps, and not by bringing the down scores of white kids but by bringing up scores if black kids.
But integration eventually stops being tried because of "white flight" or other efforts to force politicians to stop it. Poor people go to school where they live. Rich people always shop around for schools, private school often. Middle class will also shop around for schools. They choose neighborhoods with "good" schools. If they can't afford the best neighborhoods then some middle class will use private schools also. If a politician brings up integration the rich/middle class freak out, they will complain that they chose a good neighborhood and it's not fair to degrade it by bringing kids from schools with lots of violence.
I know people up in San Francisco complaining about high cost of private schools and I ask why they don't use public schools instead of shunning them and making them even worse. They just say that they were assigned a "bad" school so they have "no choice". Guess what, those kids in that poor school also have no choice.
No matter how many times someone claims separate-but-equal works there never is real equality. Poor schools don't get the best teachers, they don't even get enough money to maintain their buildings properly. This is to all appearances a seperate and highly unequal state. But it has been shown that when disadvantaged students get into better schools that they do perform better.
So when it comes to a gifted program, there will never be money in poor schools for this sort of thing. They're not even going to offer any of the tests to see if students are gifted or not.
If it's not racist it is at the very least classist, and in a country where we pretend we are all equal. It doesn't even have to be overt racism, because I can already hear people objecting that they aren't racist, and they're quite friendly with the three of four black students from their kid's private school. But segregation is racist, even if factors that caused the segregation weren't overtly discriminating on race. The system is racist if black students are given no opportunity to leave their failing schools. And let's face it, this is Texas.
I consider $10-20 when you go over to be a very large charge. When my home ISP is $50 with a 250GB cap, then the phones are definitely overcharging for the data. I've got the minimal plan of 300mb (I'd prefer no data at all, but they refuse to hook up a smart phone without it). Yes, I know some people are paying regularly $100 a month for their smart phones, but that's absurdly high in my book, they're in the same category of people who think $100/mo for cable is reasonable.
It's AT&T and the rules are absurd: Overage charge in increments of $20 per 300MB on a 300MB plan, or 1GB at $15 per GB on other plans. They don't just bump you up to the next overpriced data plan. So yes, I consider those fees excessive.
And what's "underage"? They charge you for NOT using enough data?
No, not a problem. If I'm "wandering" then I'm not using my phone. I've got 300mb a month, on purpose. I've got wifi and home and at work so why pay a lot of money for data I don't need. It's not that hard to just stop using the phone when wandering.
There are phone companies and ISPs that don't warn you. It's extra income for them when you exceed your limits.
Well, it's mobile data, and it's hard to compare 3g/4g phone internet to home computer internet. Even from the same company you get different data caps, different bandwidth caps, different prices per GB, etc. You can't easily use the phone to gateway you to the internet as many companies disallow this. But with wi-fi it's very easy to have your phone get to the internet through your ISP, or your employer's ISP, etc.
Metered is important in a lot of ways because there is not enough internet to go around most places. It only works now because most people don't use that much internet. Streaming video is great, until everyone does it and there's not enough bandwidth to go around (especially bad when you're sharing the wires with your neighbors).
You'd think. But it is surprisingly easy to such up a lot of data and not know it. You have to go to a significant amount of extra work with later phones/versions to disable all mobile data usage that is on by default. Google by default wants to back up all your settings/photos/app-data to the cloud. By default downloading apps and updates is done with mobile or wifi and it's an extra action to make it wifi only (something a novice isn't going to be aware of). Yes, you don't download apps that much, but you do in the first few weeks you own the phone. I've also seen Android warn me when I flip off mobile data in some places that I am reducing functionality, which is a sort of message that would scare away the novices from attempting this.
I have used 0.9GB on wi-fi for September, and I'm not a heavy user. For someone naive that might all be on the mobile data plan instead.
It is very expensive when you go over the cap. This is the US. And since you said "cell phone" I suspect you're in the US also.
But the same sort of things seem to happen on Android. A lot of stuff is turned on by default on Android and I was surprised to see a big jump in data usage the first day that I had my phone; which is bad because I have the smallest dataplan allowed. A coworker yesterday showed off his new Android phone and then was startled when he saw how much data had actually be used in just three days, after which he started turning off lots of stuff.
Yes, I think some of this may be due to the extra work the low paid sales people do in the store and the default configurations they use (like automatically backing up everything to the cloud, sending usage data to Google, etc). But Jellybean did turn off some features as well which seemed odd - for example, turning off mobile data is now harder to do, as apps and widgets aren't allowed to do that anymore. When you do turn off some power or data hungry features you get warnings that you may lose functionality. They're pushing the customers to the data first and wifi second.
But an introverts wouldn't have the impulse to post to 500 people in the first place. Why would they bother? There are some adults that can't figure this out; they think that Johnny doesn't have enough friends, so he's dragged to the playground, forced to join drama club, enrolled in sports, all in a vain attempt to "fix" the problem of being an introvert.
Pretty precocious aren't you, sonny?
But most of those aren't "friends". I'm not on Facebook, but I've got a set of strangers who follow me on Google+, and I'm not mislead into think that they're friends. Similarly most of the people I know on Facebook at "friends" with lots of people just to keep in contact, old class mates, past coworkers, etc. Not friends really, but people they know. One step up from acquaintances but not yet to the level of sending the Christmas newsletter to.
Loyalty to state? What about just basic morality? You kill a hooker, then you're better off locked up anyway. Three meals a day, exercise program, opportunity for romance.
Which is way more fun than using someone else's.
in this case they have built something pretty cool.
I missed seeing that part in the article.
So it's Windows 10 without any windows. Do we just call it "10 IoT"?
Oh well. When I've put windows in VMware, I make sure to not have the network. Otherwise it's a long set of annoying upgrades.
The problem with the war on terror, is that it made no attempt to resolve underlying issues.
Maybe, but it was a very short time ago when we still had Christian terrorism ("oh, but those weren't real Christians, they don't count!"). And it's not a big stretch of the imagination to see it again in the future. Anywhere there is an insurgency or civil war, you're often going to see one side claim that it's because of their religion, mostly because people can't separate ethnicity/culture from their religion.
Have you tried shutting it off and starting it again?
And they should be called programmers. Not "coders".
I think in general more console games are intended for sharing (ie, all looking at same screen). But more PC games are intended as single player, or playing with asshat strangers online.
I got one PC game that someone recommended to me. But it's difficult since you can't do much of anything unless you have a second player with a second controller. Sadly, this was before Steam offered refunds.
Difficult to use consoles. Tiny controllers are unergonomic, sized for children, and intended for use on a couch.
So you have to be online to upgrade to Windows 10? What is this, Steam?
Possibly because you have a Microsoft account and it's storing stuff on its servers?