This seems like a confusion of symptom and actual cause, when the root issue may be simply a lack of good sleep (for whatever reason).
Our eyelids are not opaque, they definitely allow ambient light levels through. This would imply that perhaps sleeping with high ambient light, it's just harder to get good solid rest. I guess you could test this by checking brainwaves of people sleeping in the dark, and sleeping with bright lights on, and seeing if there's a difference in the 'depth' of sleep they reach.
As any review of the last million years of temperature history would show anyone, we've had (relatively) sharp temperature surges followed by even sharper declines. It's happened pretty much like clockwork, every 120,000 years or so. It's almost like there's a feedback mechanism.
Maybe. But then again, I'm curious why you'd believe that administrators that are demonstrably incompetent with the dollars they're given today would be more responsible if given more money?
I'm pretty sure Mark Zuckerberg just threw $100 MILLION at the NJ schools and it didn't do shit?
Minneapolis public schools - last time I checked - were eating $12000/student/year. So a classroom of 25 kids has over a quarter million dollars per year. Even handing HALF of that to a teacher, and paying high-end office-space lease rates for that 900sq ft room means those 26 kids have $130k every year to use to learn. Does each classroom really consume $130,000 annual learning materials? Of course not....schools, their stultifying teachers' unions, and inept bureaucracies are cesspools of waste. But it can never be roto-rooter'd out because anyone suggesting so is attacked because "children!!".
He was a largely a buffoon as governor, but I applauded with delight when I heard Jesse Ventura being attacked by the head of the state teacher's union on a 'fireside chat' sort of program for his lack of support for more school funding. He stopped the teacher, and said (something like) "How much do you want? You keep insisting you need more money, more money, more money...every year. It's never enough. I'll tell you what: you tell me an actual amount, and I'll sign the check, if you guarantee reasonable results. 90% of kids graduating able to read, write, and do math at 12th grade level. If you have to hold 'em back, that's fine too. Just so graduates hit those numbers. Any amount you name, I'll pay it. The other side of the agreement is that if you don't, I get to fire you ALL, disband the union, and hire people that are competent. Deal?" Of course, that was unacceptable.
Clearly this is false, as we know that belief in evolution means Republican, and we all know that Republicans are inherently stupider than Democrats. I mean, that's not a belief, that's an inarguable fact, right?/prettymucheveryslashdotter
No, what's needed is an infinite supply of money, of course. Now, if you don't have a handy Leprechaun or fairy dust, then I guess you're screwed.
Too many internet stories (commentaries, blogs, whatever) fail to comprehend what in negotiations is called BATNA - essentially, what's the real alternative?
The reason we USE temporary classrooms is because we're stuck with the realities of too many kids, short budgets, poor planning, construction schedules, or a combination of the above.
Making temporary structures more expensive - ie, something better than shoddy little temporary structures - means more cost, meaning less classrooms, meaning in reality such a thing would result in more crowded permanent classrooms. Is that better or worse than some special snowflakes getting the sniffles a little? (I genuinely don't know, maybe it is. I was supposed to be in a temporary trailer-office for 3-4 months, it ended up being 26. I know how they suck.)
This is the core reason that I don't understand why social contract theory has been 'dispensed' with by serious philosophers. Everything I read dismissing it ignores context and setting, as if the moral viewpoint of a 20th century city dweller in a peaceful western society is going to be the same as that of a tribal barbarian who has no way to know if that stranger is potentially a friend or the lead scout of the raiders that's going to pillage his clan hearth.
In DayZ, I'd love to see the simple mechanism that you don't log out...you sleep where you are. If you're awakened and not playing, the AI runs you according to logic and priorities that you set. This *alone* would make the idea of contracts with trustworthy others invaluable. Someone could protect you while you sleep - the most fundamental reason to cooperate.
Not at all, but in a capitalist system, you're compensated not based on what YOU think you're worth, you're compensated by what OTHERS think you're worth...also commonly called "what you're actually worth". (Actually, it's more complicated than that, having to do with opportunity cost and replacement cost; ie your pay will be the lowest possible pay I can 'get away' with paying you before I can replace you with someone equivalent - in my eyes, not yours.)
If I write Finnegan's Wake, and I think it's the greatest book ever, I can freely price it for $100. However, I cannot then cry if nobody buys it. If I can finally sell it for $1.20 as a doorstop, that's "what it's worth" no matter what I think.
Then again, the behavior we call psychopathy in our polite safe benign situation might be survival-optimal choices when actually confronted with a situation where the results aren't academic, but materially affect our chances of living through today.
I'm not entirely sure that the mural yardstick we use in measuring ourselves is worth anything more than firewood when "shit gets real". As a soldier friend if mine explained, that was one if the challenges in integrating back to civilian life, it's an entirely different context.
Any organism will try to dominate its environment. Corporations are the same; they will work to optimize the merger for themselves. Then either they will dominate, or someone will come along and outcompete them, and they adapt or die.
Let's remember that publishers Mr Stross is bemoaning have themselves acted as plutocratic gatekeepers to the public reading markets for a century or more themselves.
Amazon's just doing it better now.
I'm sorry if an author feels he can no longer make a living being a writer, but he isn't entitled to that occupation. He can either keep doing it because he loves it, it he can, as he said, get a real job. Sorry if capitalism is painful that way.
I would only change the word "properly" with "transparently".
Ban the 'invisible' paycheck deductions for taxes. Let people see what they are ACTUALLY paying in taxes by writing a check or going to pay it themselves.
Ban the embedding of taxes, fees and other revenue-gaining measures in the text of other bills, unless the revenue gained is directly used to pay for the things in the bill, ie "Provide children with school breakfasts" and "increase income taxes by 0.1%."
Politicians would have to be a lot better tap-dancers.
You're right, how incomprehensibly silly to point out that increasing temperatures observed on multiple planets in our solar system might suggest that the Earth's warming is primarily due to something other than yuppies driving SUVs.
I mean surely it's absurd that the SUN has something to do with climate change, right?
Posting someone's stupid slashvertisement for "moving into the cloud" THREE stories away from "Adobe's Cloud Services Down...again" (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/05/15/1429204/adobe-creative-cloud-services-offline-again)
Well, no, but it would suck pretty hard if you have to use Adobe products, their service is down, and you happen to be at a "software call home or no worky" point.
Why isn't everyone migrating to the cloud? Cloud apps are fantastic! They enable collaboration! Everything's great! Join the Cloud or be a dinosaur!" ./hype
Steam is about the only cloud service that is reasonably adequate, and that's because if a game isn't available, it's not that big a deal.
But for work-critical software? If you are "in the cloud" you're gambling with your livelihood.
I know you're trying to be all flippant and ironic, but there's a valid point buried there.
What price survival? (Or to be more precise, what price "a little bit more survival"?)
If you run every day, eat a calorie restricted diet, never smoke, never do drugs, never drink more than one alcoholic drink a week, never have unprotected sex with a stranger - it's almost certain you're going to live longer.
But is it living?
As PJ O'Rourke said famously (I could be slightly misquoting) "Fuck that healthy stuff. When I die, I want to skid to a stop over an open grave with a martini in one hand, a cigar in the other, reeking of sex, and say "Man, what a ride!""
Dying IS inevitable. Making yourself miserable to avoid it is pointless and futile.
However, even setting aside that this is almost entirely politically motivated, any safety person will tell you that these sorts of restraints are the LAST line of prevention, and any safety policy that relies on such safeguards is doomed.
Here's what you'll hear at the lawsuit: "ah, it's a smartgun, I'm the only one that can fire it, so I can leave it loaded and lying about....it's "safe", right?"
"Foolproof" safety devices are a bad crutch, and they almost invariably come to be relied-upon far more than they should.
Finally, if you read the Federalist papers and the US Constitution, the main reason for the US public to be ENTITLED to have firearms is not to protect themselves from crime. The idea that someone (particularly today) is going to "trust" the authorities to install a chip that can deactivate a firearm - perhaps remotely - is absolutely ludicrous.
...as with most technological weapon issues, those with them, or with a reasonable chance of developing them will defend the idea.
Those without will roundly condemn it using a great deal of moral and ethical language, but their base issue is that they cheerfully condemn the use of any weapons that they cannot yet field.
The UN as a clearinghouse organization for multinational efforts does a massive amount of good that would otherwise be difficult to enable. The UN's general chambers are worthless talking shops where inconsequential states get to criticize significant, powerful states for acting in their own narrow self-interest... for reasons based entirely on their OWN narrow self-interests. (Not to mention its main actual value: a way for the favored scions of grubby tinpot regimes to be prostitute-frequenting scofflaws in a place far nicer than their own pestilential capitals.)
Slashdot Mirror
You understand that people shouldn't be looking at "minimum wage" as a career, right?
Minimum wage = replaceable drone with almost no skills whatsoever.
If you're working at a minimum wage job as an adult, you've made some colossally bad life choices. Now you get to live with them.
Go to a foreign country, get invited to take a rare trip through a valuable suppliers factory.
This supplier carefully dresses up for his guests, and makes sure his factory is spotless for the important, honored visitors.
And you show up in a ratty t shirt and wtf are they,capri shorts?
Nothing like showing respect for your hosts. What did you bring as a gift, a used newspaper you read last week?
This seems like a confusion of symptom and actual cause, when the root issue may be simply a lack of good sleep (for whatever reason).
Our eyelids are not opaque, they definitely allow ambient light levels through. This would imply that perhaps sleeping with high ambient light, it's just harder to get good solid rest.
I guess you could test this by checking brainwaves of people sleeping in the dark, and sleeping with bright lights on, and seeing if there's a difference in the 'depth' of sleep they reach.
If you rightclick on the video itself, go to settings, and allow it to cache unlimited, it DOES buffer like it used to.
As any review of the last million years of temperature history would show anyone, we've had (relatively) sharp temperature surges followed by even sharper declines.
It's happened pretty much like clockwork, every 120,000 years or so.
It's almost like there's a feedback mechanism.
Maybe. But then again, I'm curious why you'd believe that administrators that are demonstrably incompetent with the dollars they're given today would be more responsible if given more money?
I'm pretty sure Mark Zuckerberg just threw $100 MILLION at the NJ schools and it didn't do shit?
Minneapolis public schools - last time I checked - were eating $12000/student/year.
So a classroom of 25 kids has over a quarter million dollars per year.
Even handing HALF of that to a teacher, and paying high-end office-space lease rates for that 900sq ft room means those 26 kids have $130k every year to use to learn. Does each classroom really consume $130,000 annual learning materials? Of course not....schools, their stultifying teachers' unions, and inept bureaucracies are cesspools of waste. But it can never be roto-rooter'd out because anyone suggesting so is attacked because "children!!".
He was a largely a buffoon as governor, but I applauded with delight when I heard Jesse Ventura being attacked by the head of the state teacher's union on a 'fireside chat' sort of program for his lack of support for more school funding. He stopped the teacher, and said (something like) "How much do you want? You keep insisting you need more money, more money, more money...every year. It's never enough. I'll tell you what: you tell me an actual amount, and I'll sign the check, if you guarantee reasonable results. 90% of kids graduating able to read, write, and do math at 12th grade level. If you have to hold 'em back, that's fine too. Just so graduates hit those numbers. Any amount you name, I'll pay it. The other side of the agreement is that if you don't, I get to fire you ALL, disband the union, and hire people that are competent. Deal?"
Of course, that was unacceptable.
Thanks for perfectly proving my point.
Hint: perhaps you should check your definition of conservatism for strawmen? I'm pretty sure there are at least a couple lurking in there.
I'll even give you the first: "reluctant" != "not willing to"
Clearly this is false, as we know that belief in evolution means Republican, and we all know that Republicans are inherently stupider than Democrats. I mean, that's not a belief, that's an inarguable fact, right? /prettymucheveryslashdotter
No, what's needed is an infinite supply of money, of course. Now, if you don't have a handy Leprechaun or fairy dust, then I guess you're screwed.
Too many internet stories (commentaries, blogs, whatever) fail to comprehend what in negotiations is called BATNA - essentially, what's the real alternative?
The reason we USE temporary classrooms is because we're stuck with the realities of too many kids, short budgets, poor planning, construction schedules, or a combination of the above.
Making temporary structures more expensive - ie, something better than shoddy little temporary structures - means more cost, meaning less classrooms, meaning in reality such a thing would result in more crowded permanent classrooms. Is that better or worse than some special snowflakes getting the sniffles a little? (I genuinely don't know, maybe it is. I was supposed to be in a temporary trailer-office for 3-4 months, it ended up being 26. I know how they suck.)
This is the core reason that I don't understand why social contract theory has been 'dispensed' with by serious philosophers. Everything I read dismissing it ignores context and setting, as if the moral viewpoint of a 20th century city dweller in a peaceful western society is going to be the same as that of a tribal barbarian who has no way to know if that stranger is potentially a friend or the lead scout of the raiders that's going to pillage his clan hearth.
In DayZ, I'd love to see the simple mechanism that you don't log out...you sleep where you are. If you're awakened and not playing, the AI runs you according to logic and priorities that you set.
This *alone* would make the idea of contracts with trustworthy others invaluable. Someone could protect you while you sleep - the most fundamental reason to cooperate.
Not at all, but in a capitalist system, you're compensated not based on what YOU think you're worth, you're compensated by what OTHERS think you're worth...also commonly called "what you're actually worth". (Actually, it's more complicated than that, having to do with opportunity cost and replacement cost; ie your pay will be the lowest possible pay I can 'get away' with paying you before I can replace you with someone equivalent - in my eyes, not yours.)
If I write Finnegan's Wake, and I think it's the greatest book ever, I can freely price it for $100. However, I cannot then cry if nobody buys it.
If I can finally sell it for $1.20 as a doorstop, that's "what it's worth" no matter what I think.
Then again, the behavior we call psychopathy in our polite safe benign situation might be survival-optimal choices when actually confronted with a situation where the results aren't academic, but materially affect our chances of living through today.
I'm not entirely sure that the mural yardstick we use in measuring ourselves is worth anything more than firewood when "shit gets real". As a soldier friend if mine explained, that was one if the challenges in integrating back to civilian life, it's an entirely different context.
Any organism will try to dominate its environment.
Corporations are the same; they will work to optimize the merger for themselves. Then either they will dominate, or someone will come along and outcompete them, and they adapt or die.
Let's remember that publishers Mr Stross is bemoaning have themselves acted as plutocratic gatekeepers to the public reading markets for a century or more themselves.
Amazon's just doing it better now.
I'm sorry if an author feels he can no longer make a living being a writer, but he isn't entitled to that occupation. He can either keep doing it because he loves it, it he can, as he said, get a real job. Sorry if capitalism is painful that way.
Like everything else, this technology will be driven by porn.
So many, many people simply don't understand TANSTAAFL.
Seriously - do you think everything is out there on the web solely for your convenience?
I would only change the word "properly" with "transparently".
Ban the 'invisible' paycheck deductions for taxes. Let people see what they are ACTUALLY paying in taxes by writing a check or going to pay it themselves.
Ban the embedding of taxes, fees and other revenue-gaining measures in the text of other bills, unless the revenue gained is directly used to pay for the things in the bill, ie "Provide children with school breakfasts" and "increase income taxes by 0.1%."
Politicians would have to be a lot better tap-dancers.
That's a terrific and well-documented analysis.
Of course, you understand that you're arguing religion - the remaining individuals whose mind might be converted by evidence is a vanishingly small %.
But your effort is sincerely appreciated. All we can do is keep telling the truth.
You're right, how incomprehensibly silly to point out that increasing temperatures observed on multiple planets in our solar system might suggest that the Earth's warming is primarily due to something other than yuppies driving SUVs.
I mean surely it's absurd that the SUN has something to do with climate change, right?
Posting someone's stupid slashvertisement for "moving into the cloud" THREE stories away from "Adobe's Cloud Services Down...again" (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/05/15/1429204/adobe-creative-cloud-services-offline-again)
Nicely done!
"...it's Not The End Of The World."
Well, no, but it would suck pretty hard if you have to use Adobe products, their service is down, and you happen to be at a "software call home or no worky" point.
Hype/
Why isn't everyone migrating to the cloud? Cloud apps are fantastic! They enable collaboration! Everything's great! Join the Cloud or be a dinosaur!" /hype
.
Steam is about the only cloud service that is reasonably adequate, and that's because if a game isn't available, it's not that big a deal.
But for work-critical software? If you are "in the cloud" you're gambling with your livelihood.
That is neither relevant nor even sensical.
The point of the article was that "more money" - something teachers, unions, admins, and schools have all been crying for incessantly - did NOTHING.
I know you're trying to be all flippant and ironic, but there's a valid point buried there.
What price survival? (Or to be more precise, what price "a little bit more survival"?)
If you run every day, eat a calorie restricted diet, never smoke, never do drugs, never drink more than one alcoholic drink a week, never have unprotected sex with a stranger - it's almost certain you're going to live longer.
But is it living?
As PJ O'Rourke said famously (I could be slightly misquoting) "Fuck that healthy stuff. When I die, I want to skid to a stop over an open grave with a martini in one hand, a cigar in the other, reeking of sex, and say "Man, what a ride!""
Dying IS inevitable. Making yourself miserable to avoid it is pointless and futile.
However, even setting aside that this is almost entirely politically motivated, any safety person will tell you that these sorts of restraints are the LAST line of prevention, and any safety policy that relies on such safeguards is doomed.
Here's what you'll hear at the lawsuit: "ah, it's a smartgun, I'm the only one that can fire it, so I can leave it loaded and lying about....it's "safe", right?"
"Foolproof" safety devices are a bad crutch, and they almost invariably come to be relied-upon far more than they should.
Finally, if you read the Federalist papers and the US Constitution, the main reason for the US public to be ENTITLED to have firearms is not to protect themselves from crime. The idea that someone (particularly today) is going to "trust" the authorities to install a chip that can deactivate a firearm - perhaps remotely - is absolutely ludicrous.
...as with most technological weapon issues, those with them, or with a reasonable chance of developing them will defend the idea.
Those without will roundly condemn it using a great deal of moral and ethical language, but their base issue is that they cheerfully condemn the use of any weapons that they cannot yet field.
The UN as a clearinghouse organization for multinational efforts does a massive amount of good that would otherwise be difficult to enable. ... for reasons based entirely on their OWN narrow self-interests. (Not to mention its main actual value: a way for the favored scions of grubby tinpot regimes to be prostitute-frequenting scofflaws in a place far nicer than their own pestilential capitals.)
The UN's general chambers are worthless talking shops where inconsequential states get to criticize significant, powerful states for acting in their own narrow self-interest