The way I see it, unless laptops as a whole are distracting to _other_ students then they are nothing more than another medium to take notes on. On the other hand, if I happen to have a laptop that makes a lot of noise (intended or not) and it is distracting the professor or other students, then I see a problem.
I've been going back to school to get a Master's at night. It's pretty annoying that the classroom is full of kids watching TV or movies on their laptops. While I do what I can to sit near the front so that I don't have any video playing on a screen in front of me, it's not always possible. I have to leave work to get to class, so I can't just show up early enough to get in front of the TV watching idiots.
From a purely anecdotal perspective, I'd say 60-70% of laptops in the college classroom are being used for entertainment, not note taking. At the very least, I'd like to see them confined to the back few rows of the room.
It's pretty annoying when someone in front of you busts out a laptop and starts watching a movie. It's much harder to pay attention to the lecture when there's something more interesting going on. At the very least, they should confine laptop usage to the back rows.
You clearly didn't read the article. That argument is refuted from the outset. I've got to assume that as the (now former) owner of the site, he at least knows how he gets paid for his ads.
I don't want all the bother of a computer. I already have that. For a tablet/slate, I just want to run a few apps/games and get online. I want it to be easy. I don't really want to mess with the file system. I don't want a browser that's vulnerable to malware. I don't want to have to mess with drivers. I don't want to have to manually drag and drop or copy my music or pictures from my computer to my tablet (or worse, dick around with file sharing over a network). I just want the damn thing to do apps, games and Internet without any fuss. I bet the iPad will do that and do it well. I just wish some of the competitors actually understood that concept.
I suppose you could try to draw that inference, but it may just be that homosexual love stories don't appeal as much to heterosexuals. I don't have much interest in watching two men fall in love. I think this has to do with the fact that when watching a romantic movie, my interest in the love story is often based on my own attraction to the female character. If she's a bitch or an idiot or I don't find her attractive, I'm not that interested. So, if the romance involves two men, it's unlikely that I'll be attracted to either of them, and so I won't be interested.
The US has a really poor mentality when it comes to crime. The purpose of a prison sentence is rehabilitation, not revenge. The tendency of people to assign labels and their inability to remove them is a real problem. I was recently in the jury pool for a case regarding a convicted sex offender who was accused of failing to properly register as such. During voir dire, I mentioned the Scarlet Letter. Sadly, neither the assistant district attorney nor the defense attorney had any idea what I was talking about.
I'm honestly not sure what is the point of letting someone out of prison only to exclude them from all reasonable paying jobs. What do we expect them to do? Since we won't let them work, they commit more crimes. Then, we use the recidivism rate as an excuse for not having hired them.
Because it's boring. Aside from the visuals, you knew exactly what was going to happen next. For 160 minutes, you knew exactly what was coming as if you wrote the thing yourself. Sorry, but the visuals are only able to carry about 30 minutes or so for me. Beyond that, there needs to be a compelling story.
No, the real question is how well you've managed the systems. You require a lot of admins per machine when you suck at managing systems. Set up your environment correctly and eliminate all the BS that's causing you unnecessary work. Sure, it's a generalization, but *good* admins will make sure problems don't keep happening.
Maybe they're looking at it in the wrong direction. Religious zealot who wants to carry out an elaborate attack gets an engineering degree to pull it off.
Unwieldy? Not hardly. You can buy this information from companies that provide it. It's not even that expensive. National retail chains all seem to manage just fine. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, CVS, Walgreens, Hallmark, Dollar General, etc. Just sign up for the service and integrate the data into your shopping cart. Big Whoop.
And did he fly through the air powered by reindeer giving out the most commercially popular gifts?
Oh that's right, you took some ancient seed on which Saint Nick possibly borrowed a name from and utterly confused him with todays mysterious gift giver.
Well, he was a mysterious gift giver who operated under cover of night. Maybe he wasn't a fat man on a sled, but he was known for giving gifts in the middle of the night. Oh, and the gifts were expensive (gold, enough to pay a dowry).
No... You most certainly are not... It is that kind of attitude that allows people like you to engage in risky behavior that endangers other peoples' lives than your own.
Did you read what I said? Do you generalize every single person to be exactly the same? Passengers distract me more than cell phone conversations. I didn't say cell phone conversations didn't distract me at all, only that passengers are more distracting that cell phone conversations. You have absolutely no ability to evaluate or refute that statement. Sorry, but you don't. I have a tendency to look at passengers when I'm talking to them. That's a bad thing. I don't do that on the phone. I have a tendency to get wrapped up in a conversation with a passenger. I don't do that on the phone. Passengers are generally not good for me.
I buy one about three times a year with the jackpot goes over $40 million. It's a ridiculous criteria given the general odds, but I seem to mentally prefer it when the payout (lump sum, after taxes) exceeds the odds of winning. At that point, I can tell myself it was a good decision. But, really, it's about the temporary fantasy, and it only costs $1.
I actually prefer talking on a cell phone to having a passenger talking to me. I have no problem at all ignoring the person on the cell phone when something comes up and then asking them to repeat themselves. Passengers make hand motions, which often tempts me to look at them, aside from my natural tendency to look at the person I'm talking to. With someone on speakerphone, I have no inclination to look at them, and I can very easily ignore them.
I'm just one person, and it's an anecdote, but I really don't think it's fair to say that all people are worse off while on a phone. I'm much better on a phone than with a passenger.
You can't keep eliminating all behaviors over risk. Driving is dangerous. Driving while talking to a passenger is dangerous. Driving while talking on a phone is dangerous. Driving while changing the radio station is dangerous. Driving while getting a CD out of its case is dangerous.
I'm a little sick of the assault on cell phones while driving. I'm a much better driver while on a cell phone than I am with a passenger in the car talking to me. We encourage passengers (car pool/HOV lanes), yet we want to ban cell phones.
For $1, you get to spend some time fantasizing that you might win. So long as you're not hurting for money, it's a perfectly reasonable purchase. It's fun, and it's only $1.
It's only vulgar because we have collectively agreed to consider it as vulgar. If we would just get over the idea that certain terms are vulgar, we could move on from having vulgarity and the childish bickering that results from its use in certain environments. "Fuck" is only profane if you keep considering it to be profane.
One would hope that the major news organizations would use some discretion in their hiring of reporters and columnists such that they are of notably higher quality than the random Internet commenter. Obviously, we can all point to individuals that have been given these platforms seemingly undeservedly, but the general idea should still hold - the average journalist for a major outlet should be better able to filter and interpret events than the average Twitterer.
I have never seen an economist or "libertarian" give a convincing argument against protectionist tariffs.
Here's a simple one: developing nations with open economies fare significantly better over long periods (20+ years) than do developing nations with tariffs and import substitution. Has been shown in a variety of economic studies. The outcomes apply to both economic growth (increase in GDP) and to economic development (increase in quality of life).
Look at Latin America. When the Great Depression hit the US, they were reeling. Most of their economies were dependent on exporting agriculture to the US and the US could no longer afford to buy it. Many of the countries turned to import substitution. Import substitution means that the government is propping up domestic industry to protect it against importing the same goods from foreigners (this can be through price subsidies, quotas, tariffs, etc). It was a terrible disaster - the lack of competition led to the LA industries being non-competitive. Now that their economies were strongly dependent on inefficient businesses that couldn't survive without continued protection, they were in a very tight spot. This led to massive amounts of borrowing, and when the interest rates went through the roof in the early 1980's, they were buried in their debt.
No, regenerative breaking is when the product is made with cheap parts and fails shortly after warranty expiration, thus ensuring that you will regenerate revenue for the manufacturer.
The problem is, you are an overpaid janitor, and if your union keeps forcing companies to give you 6 weeks vacation, $80/hour, and free blowjobs, they can and will drive those companies into extinction.
Either the executives do it or the workers do it, but one of them is going to extract too much for themselves and hurt the company. At least the workers have figured out how to take a turn.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been going back to school to get a Master's at night. It's pretty annoying that the classroom is full of kids watching TV or movies on their laptops. While I do what I can to sit near the front so that I don't have any video playing on a screen in front of me, it's not always possible. I have to leave work to get to class, so I can't just show up early enough to get in front of the TV watching idiots.
From a purely anecdotal perspective, I'd say 60-70% of laptops in the college classroom are being used for entertainment, not note taking. At the very least, I'd like to see them confined to the back few rows of the room.
It's pretty annoying when someone in front of you busts out a laptop and starts watching a movie. It's much harder to pay attention to the lecture when there's something more interesting going on. At the very least, they should confine laptop usage to the back rows.
Why are you assuming that this person sent the email and received a response? Isn't the far simpler answer that this person faked the entire exchange?
You clearly didn't read the article. That argument is refuted from the outset. I've got to assume that as the (now former) owner of the site, he at least knows how he gets paid for his ads.
I don't want all the bother of a computer. I already have that. For a tablet/slate, I just want to run a few apps/games and get online. I want it to be easy. I don't really want to mess with the file system. I don't want a browser that's vulnerable to malware. I don't want to have to mess with drivers. I don't want to have to manually drag and drop or copy my music or pictures from my computer to my tablet (or worse, dick around with file sharing over a network). I just want the damn thing to do apps, games and Internet without any fuss. I bet the iPad will do that and do it well. I just wish some of the competitors actually understood that concept.
I suppose you could try to draw that inference, but it may just be that homosexual love stories don't appeal as much to heterosexuals. I don't have much interest in watching two men fall in love. I think this has to do with the fact that when watching a romantic movie, my interest in the love story is often based on my own attraction to the female character. If she's a bitch or an idiot or I don't find her attractive, I'm not that interested. So, if the romance involves two men, it's unlikely that I'll be attracted to either of them, and so I won't be interested.
The US has a really poor mentality when it comes to crime. The purpose of a prison sentence is rehabilitation, not revenge. The tendency of people to assign labels and their inability to remove them is a real problem. I was recently in the jury pool for a case regarding a convicted sex offender who was accused of failing to properly register as such. During voir dire, I mentioned the Scarlet Letter. Sadly, neither the assistant district attorney nor the defense attorney had any idea what I was talking about.
I'm honestly not sure what is the point of letting someone out of prison only to exclude them from all reasonable paying jobs. What do we expect them to do? Since we won't let them work, they commit more crimes. Then, we use the recidivism rate as an excuse for not having hired them.
Because it's boring. Aside from the visuals, you knew exactly what was going to happen next. For 160 minutes, you knew exactly what was coming as if you wrote the thing yourself. Sorry, but the visuals are only able to carry about 30 minutes or so for me. Beyond that, there needs to be a compelling story.
No, the real question is how well you've managed the systems. You require a lot of admins per machine when you suck at managing systems. Set up your environment correctly and eliminate all the BS that's causing you unnecessary work. Sure, it's a generalization, but *good* admins will make sure problems don't keep happening.
Maybe they're looking at it in the wrong direction. Religious zealot who wants to carry out an elaborate attack gets an engineering degree to pull it off.
Unwieldy? Not hardly. You can buy this information from companies that provide it. It's not even that expensive. National retail chains all seem to manage just fine. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, CVS, Walgreens, Hallmark, Dollar General, etc. Just sign up for the service and integrate the data into your shopping cart. Big Whoop.
Well, he was a mysterious gift giver who operated under cover of night. Maybe he wasn't a fat man on a sled, but he was known for giving gifts in the middle of the night. Oh, and the gifts were expensive (gold, enough to pay a dowry).
Did you read what I said? Do you generalize every single person to be exactly the same? Passengers distract me more than cell phone conversations. I didn't say cell phone conversations didn't distract me at all, only that passengers are more distracting that cell phone conversations. You have absolutely no ability to evaluate or refute that statement. Sorry, but you don't. I have a tendency to look at passengers when I'm talking to them. That's a bad thing. I don't do that on the phone. I have a tendency to get wrapped up in a conversation with a passenger. I don't do that on the phone. Passengers are generally not good for me.
I buy one about three times a year with the jackpot goes over $40 million. It's a ridiculous criteria given the general odds, but I seem to mentally prefer it when the payout (lump sum, after taxes) exceeds the odds of winning. At that point, I can tell myself it was a good decision. But, really, it's about the temporary fantasy, and it only costs $1.
I actually prefer talking on a cell phone to having a passenger talking to me. I have no problem at all ignoring the person on the cell phone when something comes up and then asking them to repeat themselves. Passengers make hand motions, which often tempts me to look at them, aside from my natural tendency to look at the person I'm talking to. With someone on speakerphone, I have no inclination to look at them, and I can very easily ignore them.
I'm just one person, and it's an anecdote, but I really don't think it's fair to say that all people are worse off while on a phone. I'm much better on a phone than with a passenger.
You can't keep eliminating all behaviors over risk. Driving is dangerous. Driving while talking to a passenger is dangerous. Driving while talking on a phone is dangerous. Driving while changing the radio station is dangerous. Driving while getting a CD out of its case is dangerous.
I'm a little sick of the assault on cell phones while driving. I'm a much better driver while on a cell phone than I am with a passenger in the car talking to me. We encourage passengers (car pool/HOV lanes), yet we want to ban cell phones.
For $1, you get to spend some time fantasizing that you might win. So long as you're not hurting for money, it's a perfectly reasonable purchase. It's fun, and it's only $1.
It's only vulgar because we have collectively agreed to consider it as vulgar. If we would just get over the idea that certain terms are vulgar, we could move on from having vulgarity and the childish bickering that results from its use in certain environments. "Fuck" is only profane if you keep considering it to be profane.
One would hope that the major news organizations would use some discretion in their hiring of reporters and columnists such that they are of notably higher quality than the random Internet commenter. Obviously, we can all point to individuals that have been given these platforms seemingly undeservedly, but the general idea should still hold - the average journalist for a major outlet should be better able to filter and interpret events than the average Twitterer.
You're right. If the guy is on a Penthouse balcony and is still fooling around with video games, then he does need some help.
Here's a simple one: developing nations with open economies fare significantly better over long periods (20+ years) than do developing nations with tariffs and import substitution. Has been shown in a variety of economic studies. The outcomes apply to both economic growth (increase in GDP) and to economic development (increase in quality of life).
Look at Latin America. When the Great Depression hit the US, they were reeling. Most of their economies were dependent on exporting agriculture to the US and the US could no longer afford to buy it. Many of the countries turned to import substitution. Import substitution means that the government is propping up domestic industry to protect it against importing the same goods from foreigners (this can be through price subsidies, quotas, tariffs, etc). It was a terrible disaster - the lack of competition led to the LA industries being non-competitive. Now that their economies were strongly dependent on inefficient businesses that couldn't survive without continued protection, they were in a very tight spot. This led to massive amounts of borrowing, and when the interest rates went through the roof in the early 1980's, they were buried in their debt.
Is that to keep your shirt clean when you're making stuffing?
No, regenerative breaking is when the product is made with cheap parts and fails shortly after warranty expiration, thus ensuring that you will regenerate revenue for the manufacturer.
Either the executives do it or the workers do it, but one of them is going to extract too much for themselves and hurt the company. At least the workers have figured out how to take a turn.
His app is reporting things back to his server.