Then the law would allow her to eat the candy if her own parents had packed it for her.
They are not allowed to share the food, and she’d been given the candy by another child. Whether or not the other child was similarly punished is unclear, but to be consistent (make that, to be consistently stupid) they should have.
According to the Texas Department of Agriculture’s website, “The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.”
Brazos Elementary Principal Jeanne Young, said the problem, in this instance, was that the candy was provided by another student – not the girl’s parents.
Cute; but no, actually, that is not true. Under the legislation that they passed in Texas, sharing (or selling) junk food is not allowed, but you can pack your kid some sugary snacks if you want.
And while kids can still bring whatever they want for lunch from home--"If you want to send deep-fat-fried Twinkies every day, that's your business," says Combs--no sharing is allowed.
So there’s no need to fret... a hypoglycemic child can bring some candy in case their blood sugar level gets low during the day. They just can’t share it with their classmates, and the 3rd grader who got busted for the Jolly Rancher had received it from a classmate:
According to the Texas Department of Agriculture’s website, “The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.”
Brazos Elementary Principal Jeanne Young, said the problem, in this instance, was that the candy was provided by another student – not the girl’s parents.
It’s a stupid and ridiculous reaction, but it wasn’t quite as stupid and ridiculous as just letting diabetic children die.
This is reality... and speaking of someone being out of touch with reality, where have you been?
Zero-tolerance has led to some of the most idiotic decisions ever made but for some reason it’s still haunting us.
For example, a 9 year old boy nearly gets suspended for playing with a 2” long plastic gun during lunch; he had equipped a LEGO police officer figurine, which he apparently was particularly fond of since his dad was a police officer, with the tiny weapon. The owner of the culprit (a LEGO figurine holding a plastic axe) was treated less strictly since the principal deemed the toy axe less “threatening” than the toy gun.
Re:You know you're doing something wrong when
on
Hacking Vim 7.2
·
· Score: 1
He didn’t finish his subject in the comment body of his post, he started his comment in the subject line of his post. There’s a difference.
Re:For those wondering how to stop reading
on
Hacking Vim 7.2
·
· Score: 1
Pff. I never do that; it’s much easier to just flip the (light)switch.
Re:That word... he doesn't seem to know what it me
on
Hacking Vim 7.2
·
· Score: 1
That was directed at the author of the book, by the way, not the reviewer or Slashdot editor who posted the story.
Additionally, I think she’s a woman, although the extra letter in “she” wouldn’t have fit in the size limit for the subject of my post. (“Kim” could be either male or female but I looked on Google and it seems her full name is Kimberly.)
That word... he doesn't seem to know what it means
on
Hacking Vim 7.2
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Customizing something is not “hacking” it. Hacking something is taking it and using it to do something that it wasn’t originally designed for in a creative way that most people would never think of.
This is the only part of the book that is illustrative of “hacking” Vim:
Finally there are two appendices, one of which lists a bunch of games you can play in Vim (again this could've been left out of the book and I wouldn't have missed it), as well as examples of using Vim as a mail, chat, and Twitter client. There's also a feature-by-feature comparison of Vim to MS Visual Studio, showing that many of Visual Studio's abilities can be provided in Vim given the proper scripts. I thought it was an interesting demonstration that Vim really can do everything, just in case the reader had any doubts at this point.
people of all ages can walk around with their sex parts hanging everywhere and you or anybody else can freely take pictures as if on a regular beach
Why don’t you find one of those beaches and go try it?
What’ll actually happen is the police will come to investigate the creepy man who’s photographing kids on a nude beach. They’ll confiscate the camera and take you into custody. Their goons will review the photos, likely entering them into FBI CP databases and such, and determine that an arbitrary person (such as you) might have found them to be titillating, lascivious, erotic, or fitting whatever else criterion they’re using. You’ll see a jury, jury will say “zomg nekkid kids”, you will be convicted of producing and possessing CP (maybe with intent to distribute, if they’re really pushing hard), and you’ll end up in a Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison where they don’t take kindly to men who get off on pictures of naked kids.
With a really good lawyer, a ton of money, a whole lot of luck, and probably divine intervention of some form, you might be able to break that chain of events at some point, but don’t count on it.
There’s a difference in observing how people* are going to be subjected to this new technology which would allow the screener to basically see people* naked, and the people who actually think of how to use new technology to look at people* naked by putting it in airports and making people* subject themselves to it.
If you insert the phrase “including children” after every asterisk, you apparently think like a pedophile. Or so this Anonymous Coward is claiming.
It implies that we should’ve already known it, which would be impossible unless we had the exact same beliefs and everyone else did.
Don’t say “of course” to indicate solidity in your belief. It indicates “this is so obvious that I shouldn’t need to say it, but I’m saying it anyway”. That’s not what you meant, of course, but it’s what you implied. (See how it works? That was obvious, but I said it anyway, and I used “of course”, because it was appropriate there.)
The terrains of games like Oblivion and Fallout still take massive amounts of time to render in memory, and then display on the screen...The bottleneck is not necessarily the time required to simply extract it off the DVD or Blu Ray disk it resides on.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the law would allow her to eat the candy if her own parents had packed it for her.
They are not allowed to share the food, and she’d been given the candy by another child. Whether or not the other child was similarly punished is unclear, but to be consistent (make that, to be consistently stupid) they should have.
Cute; but no, actually, that is not true. Under the legislation that they passed in Texas, sharing (or selling) junk food is not allowed, but you can pack your kid some sugary snacks if you want.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1009706,00.html
So there’s no need to fret... a hypoglycemic child can bring some candy in case their blood sugar level gets low during the day. They just can’t share it with their classmates, and the 3rd grader who got busted for the Jolly Rancher had received it from a classmate:
It’s a stupid and ridiculous reaction, but it wasn’t quite as stupid and ridiculous as just letting diabetic children die.
They should make the Braille font REALLY big because if there’s any sort of crazed gunman I never want to encounter it’s definitely a blind one.
This is reality... and speaking of someone being out of touch with reality, where have you been?
Zero-tolerance has led to some of the most idiotic decisions ever made but for some reason it’s still haunting us.
For example, a 9 year old boy nearly gets suspended for playing with a 2” long plastic gun during lunch; he had equipped a LEGO police officer figurine, which he apparently was particularly fond of since his dad was a police officer, with the tiny weapon. The owner of the culprit (a LEGO figurine holding a plastic axe) was treated less strictly since the principal deemed the toy axe less “threatening” than the toy gun.
Actually, that reminds me... I have paperwork I should be doing.
Good old personal responsibility... sigh.
He’s assuming that the horizontal axis is Time, which would be pretty typical for most graphs. Not for learning curves, though.
What if the animal was the instigator?
Unlike you, I wasn’t trying to be funny.
I’ll see your Jargon File link and raise you three more.
http://catb.org/jargon/html/N/neat-hack.html, sense 1
http://catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html, senses 1 & 7
and http://catb.org/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.html.
What business is it of theirs to legislate what should or shouldn’t happen between consenting adults of any species?
But the cake is a lie...
He didn’t finish his subject in the comment body of his post, he started his comment in the subject line of his post. There’s a difference.
Pff. I never do that; it’s much easier to just flip the (light)switch.
That was directed at the author of the book, by the way, not the reviewer or Slashdot editor who posted the story.
Additionally, I think she’s a woman, although the extra letter in “she” wouldn’t have fit in the size limit for the subject of my post. (“Kim” could be either male or female but I looked on Google and it seems her full name is Kimberly.)
Customizing something is not “hacking” it. Hacking something is taking it and using it to do something that it wasn’t originally designed for in a creative way that most people would never think of.
This is the only part of the book that is illustrative of “hacking” Vim:
people of all ages can walk around with their sex parts hanging everywhere and you or anybody else can freely take pictures as if on a regular beach
Why don’t you find one of those beaches and go try it?
What’ll actually happen is the police will come to investigate the creepy man who’s photographing kids on a nude beach. They’ll confiscate the camera and take you into custody. Their goons will review the photos, likely entering them into FBI CP databases and such, and determine that an arbitrary person (such as you) might have found them to be titillating, lascivious, erotic, or fitting whatever else criterion they’re using. You’ll see a jury, jury will say “zomg nekkid kids”, you will be convicted of producing and possessing CP (maybe with intent to distribute, if they’re really pushing hard), and you’ll end up in a Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison where they don’t take kindly to men who get off on pictures of naked kids.
With a really good lawyer, a ton of money, a whole lot of luck, and probably divine intervention of some form, you might be able to break that chain of events at some point, but don’t count on it.
I think GP meant “dehumanize”.
There’s a difference in observing how people* are going to be subjected to this new technology which would allow the screener to basically see people* naked, and the people who actually think of how to use new technology to look at people* naked by putting it in airports and making people* subject themselves to it.
If you insert the phrase “including children” after every asterisk, you apparently think like a pedophile. Or so this Anonymous Coward is claiming.
Only the former, for some weird reason.
It implies that we should’ve already known it, which would be impossible unless we had the exact same beliefs and everyone else did.
Don’t say “of course” to indicate solidity in your belief. It indicates “this is so obvious that I shouldn’t need to say it, but I’m saying it anyway”. That’s not what you meant, of course, but it’s what you implied. (See how it works? That was obvious, but I said it anyway, and I used “of course”, because it was appropriate there.)
I can’t imagine why.
Basically I want them to be just as uncomfortable as I have to be.
Or perhaps I want to enjoy it as much as they do.
That being said, there is no such mechanism on a USB drive that can identify a device as an original or a copy.
There isn't, but simply using a weirdly-shaped plug would go a long way toward it.
What the hell are you talking about?
It was Jordan Montreuil’s opinion piece. He put out his soapbox and he stood on it. What’s your problem?
The terrains of games like Oblivion and Fallout still take massive amounts of time to render in memory, and then display on the screen...The bottleneck is not necessarily the time required to simply extract it off the DVD or Blu Ray disk it resides on.
You’re sure of that?
You’re confusing “distributed digitally” with “distributed in a digital format”.
Sure, a DVD is a digital format, but it was distributed in the trailers of a fleet of semis.