According to TFM, the flickering is slight enough to be imperceptible by humans. So unless epileptics have superhuman sensitivity to tiny light variations, I doubt they will notice anything either.
If teachers want smaller class sizes, they should be willing to accept proportionally smaller paychecks. That's what happens when your productivity drops.
That only makes sense if you assume that students will be equally well-educated, regardless of class size. As a counterexample, if a teacher can educate a class of 20 kids 100% effectively, that is actually more productive than educating a class of 40 kids 40% effectively.
At any allegation, teachers have to be removed from the classroom. This is a liability issue. A kid get a bad grade on a test, says the teacher touched her, and the teacher has to be removed.
Is this then the root of the problem? Perhaps instead of allowing any student with a gripe to effectively veto any teacher they don't like, an accused teacher could merely be assigned an assistant/observer until the matter is resolved. That would have the same amount of overhead (1 extra salary per accusation), would be less disruptive than forcing the entire class to adapt to a new teacher (and the new teacher to the class), and the observer could observe classroom conditions, help the teacher with classroom tasks, and ensure that no misbehavior occurred on anyone's part. That ought to satisfy all sides.
I think too often, fear of lawyers causes people to stop thinking constructively.
If Valve were to spend the money to develop for OSX, they'd never recoup it in profits because there's not a big enough installed base.
That depends on how difficult the code is to port to MacOS/X. If Valve is using a cross-platform game engine anyway, then porting to MacOS/X might be just a matter of recompiling the code and testing/tweaking it a bit. I know I'd be very likely to by Portal 2 if it came out for Mac, and I'm very unlikely to buy it if it doesn't (since I have nothing else I could run it on, and I'm not going to buy a system just to play one game)
Perhaps, but at least in some cases panic doesn't appear to have been a factor. Here's a quote from a news article from today's paper:
In the August crash, the car reached speeds of up to 120 mph before it hit another car, went through a fence off the freeway, rolled several times and then caught fire. Saylor, his wife, 13-year-old daughter and his brother-in-law all died in the crash. A 911 call that has been heard by many captured the horrific scene, with the officer saying he was unable to control the car. "Our accelerator is stuck... We're in trouble... there is no brakes," he says during part of the emergency call.
My brother-in-law started out as a fry cook as recent immigrant with practically no English skills. 20 years or so later, he's a director responsible for 500+ stores
Much like the NBA... anyone 'can' get to the top. Also like the NBA, most won't. There simply aren't enough positions at the top to allow more than a fraction of a percent to get there, no matter how hard everyone tries.
Okay, but that leaves unanswered the question of why various Toyota drivers (including a police officer, who one presumes knows how to control a car fairly well) were unable to bring their vehicles to a stop.
Of course, that's going to screw the two-footed driver.
Not really. What will happen is the next time they go two-footed-driving, they'll realize that resting their foot on the brake is causing their car to slow down. 30 seconds later, they will no longer be a two-footed driver, and the world will be a better place.
If you think this is a bug your an idiot, since the invention of the car the brake has never overridden anything.
The question isn't "has it", it's "should it"?
Luckily the braking system can easily overpower the engine.
Unfortunately, that's not true. If it was, the people who had their Toyotas run away on them would have been able to stop their cars simply by holding down the brake pedal; but they were (desperately) doing that and it didn't work, it just fried their brakes.
The readiness to kill is somewhat lower if you have to be involved face-to-face.... which is not at all the same as claiming that there would be no emotional effect at all.
I agree you can't defeat an ideology just by attacking (barring mass genocide), but you can't ignore the armies who are out there fighting and just try to "out compete" the ideology with your own.
I think we are in agreement. Where there is an actual army to fight (as there is, in parts of Afghanistan), then the traditional rules can be applied. In places where there is not a traditional army, just cells of people who have borderline-radical beliefs and who may or may not decide to commit acts of terrorism, they don't. These latter places would currently include the USA, Egypt, India, Iran, the UK, etc.
Now what's your solution that doesn't involve an army to counter that?
My solution to the Taliban is the same as yours -- use the Army to stop them, while incurring as few civilian casualties as possible. But Afghanistan is just one country, and the (so-called) Global War On Terror is alleged to be what its name indicates, a global war. My argument is that the "war" part is not global, and the "global" part is not war.
This is a lie repeated over and over again. Had your statement been true. WWI would have ended in 6 months.
All he said was that the ugliness of war is a damping effect, he didn't give any figures as to its strength relative to other factors. Where do you get 6 months from? It could just as easily be speculated that without the damping effect, WWI would have lasted 30 years.
Truth is... Humans can be made to murder each other under the worst possible circumstances possible.
Right, but the key is that they have to be made to do so. Left to their own devices, they won't (at least, not on a WWI-scale). That's the damping effect the GP was referring to.
Oh please. Get off your moral high horse and pay attention to the God Damned reality that is Humanity. You want to end this global war or not? Pick a side. It's easy (black and white). You can be the victor, or loser/slave to your enemy. Pussyfooting around the issue only leads to more death in the long run.
Oversimplifying things leads to more death in the long run. There are a lot of differences between what we have in front of us and a 'war'. In a war, there is an enemy army that you can attack. What we are up against is not an army, but an ideology. You can't bomb an ideology. When we do things like bombing civilians, invading other countries, or torturing suspects, it only spreads the ideology further. The only way to destroy an ideology is by demonstrating to the people that it might appeal to why its values are wrong, and our values are right. If all we can demonstrate is that we are better at killing people than Al-Qaeda is, then people will support Al-Qaeda because they fear us.
It's not about dying for your country, it's about fighting fairly while still doing everything to win.
If fairness were a criterion, we would count up the number of weapons we have, the number of weapons they have, and then if we have more weapons than they do, send them enough weapons to make it even, before starting the war.
Clearly, however, that would be silly. Fairness is not a criterion in war. If it were, the war wouldn't be necessary.
My own experience as an SSBN missile crewman (about the ultimate in depersonalization and desensitization) agrees with them and not with you.
In order to make any kind of comparison based on personal experience, you'd need to have experienced both: killing people from a great distance, and killing them up close in person. Then you could say which experience was more traumatizing. But based on what you've written so far, it doesn't sound like you've done either of those things. Just because being near 'the button' was a mind-fuck for you, doesn't mean that actually seeing people scream, bleed, and die in front of you wouldn't be worse.
Regardless if Global Warming is real or not, there is a definitive political agenda for pushing that it is real. If the world's governments need to unite to combat global warming, the formation of world government fits some people's agendas. Real or Fake, there is a certain group of powerful people that will be pushing it on you.
That works both ways, doesn't it? Regardless if Global Warming is real or not, there is also a political agenda for pushing that it is fake. Commercial interests that stand to lose money if CO2 limits are imposed will push the "Global Warming is fake" meme to keep their profits up for as long as possible, just like the cigarette companies pushed "lung cancer is fake" for decades. And the black-helicopter crowd will push it because they need a One World Order bogey-man to keep people sufficiently paranoid to support them.
In other news Obama did the first thing I liked, he commissioned the first nuclear power plant in 30 years claiming it is better for the environment than coal or gas. I'm glad nuclear is being opened up again so we can make better power plants
I just hope they design this one in such a way that the nuclear waste storage problems are minimized. Thorium reactor, pebble bed, waste reprocessing, I don't care how... just as long as the plan isn't "who cares? We'll just store it out in the back yard and let the grandkids worry about it"
This means that the poor smuck that has to maintain someone else's code has to spend a huge amount of time reading and/or stepping through the code to try and understand how it works before any actual "code maintenance" can start.
The above provides an excellent incentive for the company to keep the original programmer, instead of, say, laying him off and outsourcing his job to a team of fresh college graduates in Bombay, even though they are willing to work for less.
And before some moron chimes in with something about modern $150-million jetliners being fly-by-wire, average cars do not cost $150 million and certainly don't have the level of redundancy (and proper engineering) that a 777 Dreamliner has.
Hi, I'm Jeremi, and I'll be your moron for today. I agree that today's cars aren't engineered to the safety levels of airliners, but there's no reason that they couldn't be. The safety-engineering costs are per-product, not per-unit, so even very high costs would be amortized over a large number of vehicles sold.
So if there is one good thing that comes out of the Toyota fiasco, it will be that auto manufacturers start putting more efforts into making their electronic control systems more failure-proof. At that point, electronic control becomes more reliable than manual control, since both approaches (when done properly) are reliable at first, but the manual linkages are subject to physical wear over time, whereas the electronic control systems have no moving parts and thus aren't subject to wear.
Slashdot Mirror
According to TFM, the flickering is slight enough to be imperceptible by humans. So unless epileptics have superhuman sensitivity to tiny light variations, I doubt they will notice anything either.
If teachers want smaller class sizes, they should be willing to accept proportionally smaller paychecks. That's what happens when your productivity drops.
That only makes sense if you assume that students will be equally well-educated, regardless of class size. As a counterexample, if a teacher can educate a class of 20 kids 100% effectively, that is actually more productive than educating a class of 40 kids 40% effectively.
At any allegation, teachers have to be removed from the classroom. This is a liability issue. A kid get a bad grade on a test, says the teacher touched her, and the teacher has to be removed.
Is this then the root of the problem? Perhaps instead of allowing any student with a gripe to effectively veto any teacher they don't like, an accused teacher could merely be assigned an assistant/observer until the matter is resolved. That would have the same amount of overhead (1 extra salary per accusation), would be less disruptive than forcing the entire class to adapt to a new teacher (and the new teacher to the class), and the observer could observe classroom conditions, help the teacher with classroom tasks, and ensure that no misbehavior occurred on anyone's part. That ought to satisfy all sides.
I think too often, fear of lawyers causes people to stop thinking constructively.
What are these scientists really planning?
Behold the nightmarish future
If Valve were to spend the money to develop for OSX, they'd never recoup it in profits because there's not a big enough installed base.
That depends on how difficult the code is to port to MacOS/X. If Valve is using a cross-platform game engine anyway, then porting to MacOS/X might be just a matter of recompiling the code and testing/tweaking it a bit. I know I'd be very likely to by Portal 2 if it came out for Mac, and I'm very unlikely to buy it if it doesn't (since I have nothing else I could run it on, and I'm not going to buy a system just to play one game)
Perhaps, but at least in some cases panic doesn't appear to have been a factor. Here's a quote from a news article from today's paper:
In the August crash, the car reached speeds of up to 120 mph before it hit another car, went through a fence off the freeway, rolled several times and then caught fire. Saylor, his wife, 13-year-old daughter and his brother-in-law all died in the crash.
A 911 call that has been heard by many captured the horrific scene, with the officer saying he was unable to control the car.
"Our accelerator is stuck
"This Corolla comes with Spontaneous Drag Race Mode standard, making it the most exciting car in its class!"
My brother-in-law started out as a fry cook as recent immigrant with practically no English skills. 20 years or so later, he's a director responsible for 500+ stores
Much like the NBA... anyone 'can' get to the top. Also like the NBA, most won't. There simply aren't enough positions at the top to allow more than a fraction of a percent to get there, no matter how hard everyone tries.
Okay, but that leaves unanswered the question of why various Toyota drivers (including a police officer, who one presumes knows how to control a car fairly well) were unable to bring their vehicles to a stop.
Of course, that's going to screw the two-footed driver.
Not really. What will happen is the next time they go two-footed-driving, they'll realize that resting their foot on the brake is causing their car to slow down. 30 seconds later, they will no longer be a two-footed driver, and the world will be a better place.
If you think this is a bug your an idiot, since the invention of the car the brake has never overridden anything.
The question isn't "has it", it's "should it"?
Luckily the braking system can easily overpower the engine.
Unfortunately, that's not true. If it was, the people who had their Toyotas run away on them would have been able to stop their cars simply by holding down the brake pedal; but they were (desperately) doing that and it didn't work, it just fried their brakes.
P.S. Go outside and pick some mushrooms and eat them. See what happens
Obligatory Slashdot anal-retentiveness: mushrooms aren't plants
That said, a rhubarb-leaf salad would do you in nicely.
Here's what the OP claimed:
The readiness to kill is somewhat lower if you have to be involved face-to-face. ... which is not at all the same as claiming that there would be no emotional effect at all.
I agree you can't defeat an ideology just by attacking (barring mass genocide), but you can't ignore the armies who are out there fighting and just try to "out compete" the ideology with your own.
I think we are in agreement. Where there is an actual army to fight (as there is, in parts of Afghanistan), then the traditional rules can be applied. In places where there is not a traditional army, just cells of people who have borderline-radical beliefs and who may or may not decide to commit acts of terrorism, they don't. These latter places would currently include the USA, Egypt, India, Iran, the UK, etc.
Now what's your solution that doesn't involve an army to counter that?
My solution to the Taliban is the same as yours -- use the Army to stop them, while incurring as few civilian casualties as possible. But Afghanistan is just one country, and the (so-called) Global War On Terror is alleged to be what its name indicates, a global war. My argument is that the "war" part is not global, and the "global" part is not war.
This is a lie repeated over and over again. Had your statement been true. WWI would have ended in 6 months.
All he said was that the ugliness of war is a damping effect, he didn't give any figures as to its strength relative to other factors. Where do you get 6 months from? It could just as easily be speculated that without the damping effect, WWI would have lasted 30 years.
Truth is... Humans can be made to murder each other under the worst possible circumstances possible.
Right, but the key is that they have to be made to do so. Left to their own devices, they won't (at least, not on a WWI-scale). That's the damping effect the GP was referring to.
Oh please. Get off your moral high horse and pay attention to the God Damned reality that is Humanity. You want to end this global war or not? Pick a side. It's easy (black and white). You can be the victor, or loser/slave to your enemy. Pussyfooting around the issue only leads to more death in the long run.
Oversimplifying things leads to more death in the long run. There are a lot of differences between what we have in front of us and a 'war'. In a war, there is an enemy army that you can attack. What we are up against is not an army, but an ideology. You can't bomb an ideology. When we do things like bombing civilians, invading other countries, or torturing suspects, it only spreads the ideology further. The only way to destroy an ideology is by demonstrating to the people that it might appeal to why its values are wrong, and our values are right. If all we can demonstrate is that we are better at killing people than Al-Qaeda is, then people will support Al-Qaeda because they fear us.
It's not about dying for your country, it's about fighting fairly while still doing everything to win.
If fairness were a criterion, we would count up the number of weapons we have, the number of weapons they have, and then if we have more weapons than they do, send them enough weapons to make it even, before starting the war.
Clearly, however, that would be silly. Fairness is not a criterion in war. If it were, the war wouldn't be necessary.
When they fight dirty, they're called terrorists. When we do it, we're called heroes.
When we fight dirty, they call us terrorists. When they do it, they call themselves heroes.
My own experience as an SSBN missile crewman (about the ultimate in depersonalization and desensitization) agrees with them and not with you.
In order to make any kind of comparison based on personal experience, you'd need to have experienced both: killing people from a great distance, and killing them up close in person. Then you could say which experience was more traumatizing. But based on what you've written so far, it doesn't sound like you've done either of those things. Just because being near 'the button' was a mind-fuck for you, doesn't mean that actually seeing people scream, bleed, and die in front of you wouldn't be worse.
Let me know when someone programs a Rubik's cube to build something out of legos.
Regardless if Global Warming is real or not, there is a definitive political agenda for pushing that it is real. If the world's governments need to unite to combat global warming, the formation of world government fits some people's agendas. Real or Fake, there is a certain group of powerful people that will be pushing it on you.
That works both ways, doesn't it? Regardless if Global Warming is real or not, there is also a political agenda for pushing that it is fake. Commercial interests that stand to lose money if CO2 limits are imposed will push the "Global Warming is fake" meme to keep their profits up for as long as possible, just like the cigarette companies pushed "lung cancer is fake" for decades. And the black-helicopter crowd will push it because they need a One World Order bogey-man to keep people sufficiently paranoid to support them.
In other news Obama did the first thing I liked, he commissioned the first nuclear power plant in 30 years claiming it is better for the environment than coal or gas. I'm glad nuclear is being opened up again so we can make better power plants
I just hope they design this one in such a way that the nuclear waste storage problems are minimized. Thorium reactor, pebble bed, waste reprocessing, I don't care how... just as long as the plan isn't "who cares? We'll just store it out in the back yard and let the grandkids worry about it"
This means that the poor smuck that has to maintain someone else's code has to spend a huge amount of time reading and/or stepping through the code to try and understand how it works before any actual "code maintenance" can start.
The above provides an excellent incentive for the company to keep the original programmer, instead of, say, laying him off and outsourcing his job to a team of fresh college graduates in Bombay, even though they are willing to work for less.
Just sayin'.
You underestimate the problem of making clean room. It is extreamly complicated.
Not necessarily. Here's how to do it using today's technology:
Exactly the same amount of energy it required to accelerate, but applied in the oposite direction, you just have to start deceleratin soon enough.
Actually, less energy, since you don't have to decelerate the mass of the fuel/reactant that you expelled from your ship while accelerating.
And before some moron chimes in with something about modern $150-million jetliners being fly-by-wire, average cars do not cost $150 million and certainly don't have the level of redundancy (and proper engineering) that a 777 Dreamliner has.
Hi, I'm Jeremi, and I'll be your moron for today. I agree that today's cars aren't engineered to the safety levels of airliners, but there's no reason that they couldn't be. The safety-engineering costs are per-product, not per-unit, so even very high costs would be amortized over a large number of vehicles sold.
So if there is one good thing that comes out of the Toyota fiasco, it will be that auto manufacturers start putting more efforts into making their electronic control systems more failure-proof. At that point, electronic control becomes more reliable than manual control, since both approaches (when done properly) are reliable at first, but the manual linkages are subject to physical wear over time, whereas the electronic control systems have no moving parts and thus aren't subject to wear.