Laptops without changeable batteries. Destops where it's almost impossible to change the hard drive. Etc, etc...
I'm not sure what laptops you have, but all the apple laptops I've owned had trivially easy battery swap-out. Now, I've only owned a handful of iBook, powerbook, and Macbook lines (maybe the "air" has issues with this?) but it's certainly not standard for apple to do that. iPods, sure, but not for their laptops. As for difficult to replace hard drives, the only one I can think about is iMac bubble thing... and I'll give you that one. Again, that hasn't been even close to standard in my experience.
For reference, that question is usually (and correctly) stated, "Are you, or have you ever been a member of an organization which would consider the use of violence to overthrow the US government?"
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Finding Star Wars books that weren't in the "young adult" section used to be much easier, and they were even decent pulp, if not great novels. Lucas is a shitty writer and horrible director. If he writes the first year of episodes I can guarantee I won't be watching any of it.
Reading the article mentioned they wanted it to be like "Young Indiana Jones", which I was surprised to hear about for the first time. If it has the same success, I suspect this star wars "series" won't last very long.
I believe you'll find that most people convicted of spying in this country don't go to a "standard" prison but end up in places more like Levenworth. At least one has even been sentenced to solitary confinement for life. I'm looking for links to substantiate this, but can't find them at the moment...
I would *hope* that we weren't letting foreign nationals have access to all our secrets. Now, giving clearance levels to naturalized citizens is another debate. Hopefully background checks get a little better after something like this, anyway.
The won't get better, just slower. Now, for those who have clearances and contact with Chinese foreign nationals, you can expect your clearance to take double the amount of time it would normally take. Yay.
How is it horrible to no longer support a body that can't do anything, even communicate effectively, whether or not the person is somehow conscious of what's happening? I'd think it would be worse to live in a "vegetative" state and be conscious of what's going on and not being able to do anything than to be "killed" to put me and those I Love out of misery.
But my point is, in all my experience as scientist. I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".
Isn't that the point of this journal? To be a place for exactly that type of publication?
Agreed, it's one person's word against another's. The teacher's responsibility at that point though, is to be a little more attentive to what's going on around them. They can't be aware of everything, but when they are given a heads up they should be able to figure out the truth of the situation and do something about it.
As for most bullies being groups, I agree except that there is usually one bully with people who only stand beside that person because they're worried about becoming a target if they don't. In my experience if you stand up to the "head bully" you don't have to worry about the others, except in the extreme cases mentioned before.
Fighting back is all well and good, but what if one is physically useless? I was tiny for my age and all skin and bones. 80-odd pounds in 8th grade. Barely able to carry books to school. The only thing that kept me somewhat out of trouble was that I could usually sprint fast enough to get out of their range, and they'd eventually give up for the day. Of course, it would start up all over again the next day. Teachers didn't care. Mom tried to soothe me that in heaven, "the last shall be first". What a crock of bullshit.
Sometimes, life's not fair, and that's that. I often think it would have been better had my mom had that abortion.
You had me by nearly 20 pounds my freshman year of high school. Being picked on isn't about brute strength, it's about attitude. If you don't allow people to push you around emotionally, they won't bother to push you around physically. It's fear that bullies crave and no body will bother with a kid who isn't afraid of taking a beating to stand up for himself. In 7th and 8th grade I had a couple of showdowns with the largest kid in school. He was a giant at 6'3 and over 200 pounds (in 7th grade) and I was about 4'8 and weighed 65 pounds. The first showdown was him trying to pick on me and me standing up to it. The second was him picking on someone else and me stepping in to stop it. The simple solution in situations like this is to point out the obvious. I told him that he couldn''t possibly win... if he beat up the "little kid" he'd look like an idiot because he clearly could beat me up and if somehow I beat him up he'd look like an idiot because the "little kid" beat him up. He never once hit me and realized that he couldn't intimidate me so he just didn't bother.
Violence isn't necessary, especially when you're little. Logic works much more effectively.
... He said this: "Bullies would always find someone, and if I was just a little cooler, someone else would have been the victim." Which to me reads as 'rather than fight back I found a sly way of having another kid beaten up instead of me'. And that I'm not ok with. I often got beaten up for stepping in on bullying, something I'm proud of (odd that I'm proud of getting beaten up) since I saved other people the fate. This guy is suggesting the opposite which is just lousy.
Well said. I had the same situation many times and I too felt like I was better suited for a beating (which actually rarely happened to me) than the people who were being picked on at the time.
Very rarely will I say fighting is the right choice, but when other alternatives have failed fighting is most certainly the right choice, especially when in defense of those weaker than yourself.
No, it stopped because the 1200+ other students in that school learned that you were a sociopath that would launch yourself across a table at someone else unprovoked. Everyone understands a bully and most people know how to avoid them. No one understands a crazy person who just snaps one day in the cafeteria and everyone knows how to avoid them.
The most annoying geeks I know are those who monopolize conversation, who betray a snarky know-it-all attitude, who are horrible listeners and indefatigable talkers, always eager to show how smart they are.
Two words for you to learn: Autistic Spectrum.
Here are two more. Bull shit. Autism really isn't that prevalent, no matter what all the geeks on slashdot think.
Just out of curiosity, where exactly are these kids supposed to learn these social skills if they aren't around other people their age? Social skills and interactions between adults are radically different than those between children and don't even get me started on the difference between how adults interact with children.
Pushing "overly aggressive" in early just means you have more unruly children to deal with in first grade classes and still doesn't relieve the problem because now the "unruly" children are younger than their peers (or the "socially awkward" people are older) and they have even less in common because they are different developmental levels.
Your solution simply won't work because it won't fix the problem. You'll still have "overly aggressive" kids in with "normal" or "delayed" kids. Separating them doesn't work either... the only real solution is trying to teach some manners and discipline, in the home and in the classroom.
So, you get by putting on a smile and a John Wayne attitude. How good for you. The rest of us are actually concerned about the threat these types pose to the spiritual and psychological freedom of our children.
It's your job as a parent to teach "spiritual and psychological freedom", not society's. This is more of the pandering that others have mentioned. "I don't know how to teach my child to deal with conflict so we have to outlaw all forms of conflict in schools and on playgrounds." Grow a sack and teach your children how to be reasonable adults that can properly deal with conflict (with or without violence as the case dictates) or don't have children!
While that sounds very good and true (and it is, I used it myself), the main problem isn't when there is this one guy picking on you. The problem is (and this is the usal situation in sweden) when there is more than one you have to go against. I've been up against 15 people myself, and believe me when I say that socking one in the face doesn't help at ALL in that situation.
I've never gotten this whole "One person bullying loads of people" that seems so prevalent in media, peer pressure and isolating individuals and silent consent in bullying has always been what has been the issue to me.
Honestly the different bullying tactics are a cultural thing as much as anything else. We have a lot of different types of bullying here in the USA, but the "one person bullying loads of people" definitely happens quite a bit. Usually there is one "leader bully" who has a couple of goons to back him/her up but generally the goons don't do anything when the "leader" is around except try to seem scary to whomever they are bullying. Most of the time, if you stand up to the leader, you win and they don't bother you any more. Occasionally if you stand up to the leader you get the shit kicked out of you worse and things escalate.
If you think people in "high" classes and people in "low" classes get the same opportunities anywhere you are sadly misinformed. Whether intended or not, putting kids into different ability levels most definitely creates a caste system. Especially when the people who generally get stuck in the "low" end aren't done so because of ability but primarily because of socio-economic issues beyond their control. Go to any inner-city school and compare it to the suburban schools nearby for a perfect example of this. You don't really believe that all inner-city kids deserve to be in "low" academic standing, do you?
Sure, you can always site extreme cases, but for the most part, bullying is very minor at worst. Most bullies also don't respond well to people who do fight back, even just verbally because most of them (even the ones who do use physical abuse) are scared of actually losing.
My daughter was being bullied at school and the solution I gave her was to tell the teacher and me. If the teacher didn't fix the problem the first time, I'd talk to the teacher and if the problem still persisted I told my daughter to make a fist and hit the kid as hard as she could square in the nose.
My daughter took the problem one step further after I had talked to her teacher. In front of the teacher she told the kid exactly the instructions I had given her. The kid never bothered her again.
There are always avenues of diplomacy that should be followed, but bullies never stand up to someone who will at least attempt to thwart them. It's easier to go bully someone else.
If the kid has a brain, picking up on the non-verbal cues may just get discarded as more stupid shit from the retarded meathead.
That, though, is usually not seen as bullying by the "victim" or anyone else because it has no effect. I was very small in stature as a young boy and up until my senior year of high school when I gained 40 pounds and grew 8 inches. I was always "bullied" from about 5th grade through my senior year when people realized I wasn't always going to be a little kid. People pushed me around physically and even rarely tried to best me verbally but it never bothered me. I always knew I was good at what I wanted to be good at and no amount of "bullying" could ever take that away.
I'm sure it helped that I also played a lot of team and individual sports as well as excelling in school, but the fact that you can only be bullied if you allow yourself (emotionally) to be bullied seems to have been lost on a lot of these studies. Like Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
So is it wrong to limit free speech when it is not only horribly incorrect but also maliciously so? Say Politician a is afraid of loosing his power to lying scumbag politician b who has no concern for what is true but only winning his own power? Or should that be protected as well?
That should most definitely be protected as well. "all or nothing and all is the only choice", as the GP stated, is pretty clear.
Where I live, cars are often allowed to park next to, and even in, bike lanes. As a result, riding in the bike lane often puts one in "the door zone" -- the area in which a car door suddenly opening can throw one off one's bike and under nearby traffic -- or puts one at risk by forcing frequent lane changes (merging in and out of the bike lane to avoid parked cars).
Or you could use those gosh darn useful things called side mirrors, that all cars have, to see if they have someone in them.
And in case you think I'm just an oblivious cager, I do cycle, but for fun and fitness, in places that do have parked cars and no cycle lanes.
And, when there's a person in those cars, the GP's point still holds. You still have to merge in and out of traffic lanes from the bike lane because you know someone is in the car but you don't know what their intentions are.
The problem is then you have contention between cyclists and actual pedestrians, which happens far more frequently than when cyclists use the roads. It also nearly always injures both the cyclist and however many pedestrians get in the way of the now out of control bicycle.
If you pay attention to cyclists on the road, there is no problem because we don't generally want to get hit either. It's not hard to slow down a little and give a little more space as you go by a cyclist.
Yes you can buy a gasoline engine, but then you have to deal with the extra noise it creates. Electrics are significantly quieter and hearing loss is definitely a cost to consider when in such close proximity to engine noise for prolonged periods of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Laptops without changeable batteries. Destops where it's almost impossible to change the hard drive. Etc, etc...
I'm not sure what laptops you have, but all the apple laptops I've owned had trivially easy battery swap-out. Now, I've only owned a handful of iBook, powerbook, and Macbook lines (maybe the "air" has issues with this?) but it's certainly not standard for apple to do that. iPods, sure, but not for their laptops. As for difficult to replace hard drives, the only one I can think about is iMac bubble thing... and I'll give you that one. Again, that hasn't been even close to standard in my experience.
For reference, that question is usually (and correctly) stated, "Are you, or have you ever been a member of an organization which would consider the use of violence to overthrow the US government?"
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Finding Star Wars books that weren't in the "young adult" section used to be much easier, and they were even decent pulp, if not great novels. Lucas is a shitty writer and horrible director. If he writes the first year of episodes I can guarantee I won't be watching any of it.
Reading the article mentioned they wanted it to be like "Young Indiana Jones", which I was surprised to hear about for the first time. If it has the same success, I suspect this star wars "series" won't last very long.
I believe you'll find that most people convicted of spying in this country don't go to a "standard" prison but end up in places more like Levenworth. At least one has even been sentenced to solitary confinement for life. I'm looking for links to substantiate this, but can't find them at the moment...
I would *hope* that we weren't letting foreign nationals have access to all our secrets. Now, giving clearance levels to naturalized citizens is another debate. Hopefully background checks get a little better after something like this, anyway.
The won't get better, just slower. Now, for those who have clearances and contact with Chinese foreign nationals, you can expect your clearance to take double the amount of time it would normally take. Yay.
So you remember everything about your life, especially after having brain trauma? That's pretty fucking impressive.
How is it horrible to no longer support a body that can't do anything, even communicate effectively, whether or not the person is somehow conscious of what's happening? I'd think it would be worse to live in a "vegetative" state and be conscious of what's going on and not being able to do anything than to be "killed" to put me and those I Love out of misery.
But my point is, in all my experience as scientist. I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".
Isn't that the point of this journal? To be a place for exactly that type of publication?
Agreed, it's one person's word against another's. The teacher's responsibility at that point though, is to be a little more attentive to what's going on around them. They can't be aware of everything, but when they are given a heads up they should be able to figure out the truth of the situation and do something about it.
As for most bullies being groups, I agree except that there is usually one bully with people who only stand beside that person because they're worried about becoming a target if they don't. In my experience if you stand up to the "head bully" you don't have to worry about the others, except in the extreme cases mentioned before.
Fighting back is all well and good, but what if one is physically useless? I was tiny for my age and all skin and bones. 80-odd pounds in 8th grade. Barely able to carry books to school. The only thing that kept me somewhat out of trouble was that I could usually sprint fast enough to get out of their range, and they'd eventually give up for the day. Of course, it would start up all over again the next day. Teachers didn't care. Mom tried to soothe me that in heaven, "the last shall be first". What a crock of bullshit.
Sometimes, life's not fair, and that's that. I often think it would have been better had my mom had that abortion.
You had me by nearly 20 pounds my freshman year of high school. Being picked on isn't about brute strength, it's about attitude. If you don't allow people to push you around emotionally, they won't bother to push you around physically. It's fear that bullies crave and no body will bother with a kid who isn't afraid of taking a beating to stand up for himself. In 7th and 8th grade I had a couple of showdowns with the largest kid in school. He was a giant at 6'3 and over 200 pounds (in 7th grade) and I was about 4'8 and weighed 65 pounds. The first showdown was him trying to pick on me and me standing up to it. The second was him picking on someone else and me stepping in to stop it. The simple solution in situations like this is to point out the obvious. I told him that he couldn''t possibly win... if he beat up the "little kid" he'd look like an idiot because he clearly could beat me up and if somehow I beat him up he'd look like an idiot because the "little kid" beat him up. He never once hit me and realized that he couldn't intimidate me so he just didn't bother.
Violence isn't necessary, especially when you're little. Logic works much more effectively.
... He said this:
"Bullies would always find someone, and if I was just a little cooler, someone else would have been the victim."
Which to me reads as 'rather than fight back I found a sly way of having another kid beaten up instead of me'. And that I'm not ok with. I often got beaten up for stepping in on bullying, something I'm proud of (odd that I'm proud of getting beaten up) since I saved other people the fate. This guy is suggesting the opposite which is just lousy.
Well said. I had the same situation many times and I too felt like I was better suited for a beating (which actually rarely happened to me) than the people who were being picked on at the time.
Very rarely will I say fighting is the right choice, but when other alternatives have failed fighting is most certainly the right choice, especially when in defense of those weaker than yourself.
No, it stopped because the 1200+ other students in that school learned that you were a sociopath that would launch yourself across a table at someone else unprovoked. Everyone understands a bully and most people know how to avoid them. No one understands a crazy person who just snaps one day in the cafeteria and everyone knows how to avoid them.
The most annoying geeks I know are those who monopolize conversation, who betray a snarky know-it-all attitude, who are horrible listeners and indefatigable talkers, always eager to show how smart they are.
Two words for you to learn: Autistic Spectrum.
Here are two more. Bull shit. Autism really isn't that prevalent, no matter what all the geeks on slashdot think.
Just out of curiosity, where exactly are these kids supposed to learn these social skills if they aren't around other people their age? Social skills and interactions between adults are radically different than those between children and don't even get me started on the difference between how adults interact with children.
Pushing "overly aggressive" in early just means you have more unruly children to deal with in first grade classes and still doesn't relieve the problem because now the "unruly" children are younger than their peers (or the "socially awkward" people are older) and they have even less in common because they are different developmental levels.
Your solution simply won't work because it won't fix the problem. You'll still have "overly aggressive" kids in with "normal" or "delayed" kids. Separating them doesn't work either... the only real solution is trying to teach some manners and discipline, in the home and in the classroom.
So, you get by putting on a smile and a John Wayne attitude. How good for you. The rest of us are actually concerned about the threat these types pose to the spiritual and psychological freedom of our children.
It's your job as a parent to teach "spiritual and psychological freedom", not society's. This is more of the pandering that others have mentioned. "I don't know how to teach my child to deal with conflict so we have to outlaw all forms of conflict in schools and on playgrounds." Grow a sack and teach your children how to be reasonable adults that can properly deal with conflict (with or without violence as the case dictates) or don't have children!
While that sounds very good and true (and it is, I used it myself), the main problem isn't when there is this one guy picking on you.
The problem is (and this is the usal situation in sweden) when there is more than one you have to go against.
I've been up against 15 people myself, and believe me when I say that socking one in the face doesn't help at ALL in that situation.
I've never gotten this whole "One person bullying loads of people" that seems so prevalent in media, peer pressure and isolating individuals and silent consent in bullying has always been what has been the issue to me.
Honestly the different bullying tactics are a cultural thing as much as anything else. We have a lot of different types of bullying here in the USA, but the "one person bullying loads of people" definitely happens quite a bit. Usually there is one "leader bully" who has a couple of goons to back him/her up but generally the goons don't do anything when the "leader" is around except try to seem scary to whomever they are bullying. Most of the time, if you stand up to the leader, you win and they don't bother you any more. Occasionally if you stand up to the leader you get the shit kicked out of you worse and things escalate.
If you think people in "high" classes and people in "low" classes get the same opportunities anywhere you are sadly misinformed. Whether intended or not, putting kids into different ability levels most definitely creates a caste system. Especially when the people who generally get stuck in the "low" end aren't done so because of ability but primarily because of socio-economic issues beyond their control. Go to any inner-city school and compare it to the suburban schools nearby for a perfect example of this. You don't really believe that all inner-city kids deserve to be in "low" academic standing, do you?
that should say "cite extreme cases"...
Sure, you can always site extreme cases, but for the most part, bullying is very minor at worst. Most bullies also don't respond well to people who do fight back, even just verbally because most of them (even the ones who do use physical abuse) are scared of actually losing.
My daughter was being bullied at school and the solution I gave her was to tell the teacher and me. If the teacher didn't fix the problem the first time, I'd talk to the teacher and if the problem still persisted I told my daughter to make a fist and hit the kid as hard as she could square in the nose.
My daughter took the problem one step further after I had talked to her teacher. In front of the teacher she told the kid exactly the instructions I had given her. The kid never bothered her again.
There are always avenues of diplomacy that should be followed, but bullies never stand up to someone who will at least attempt to thwart them. It's easier to go bully someone else.
It's not lack of understanding that is the issue.
If the kid has a brain, picking up on the non-verbal cues may just get discarded as more stupid shit from the retarded meathead.
That, though, is usually not seen as bullying by the "victim" or anyone else because it has no effect. I was very small in stature as a young boy and up until my senior year of high school when I gained 40 pounds and grew 8 inches. I was always "bullied" from about 5th grade through my senior year when people realized I wasn't always going to be a little kid. People pushed me around physically and even rarely tried to best me verbally but it never bothered me. I always knew I was good at what I wanted to be good at and no amount of "bullying" could ever take that away.
I'm sure it helped that I also played a lot of team and individual sports as well as excelling in school, but the fact that you can only be bullied if you allow yourself (emotionally) to be bullied seems to have been lost on a lot of these studies. Like Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
So is it wrong to limit free speech when it is not only horribly incorrect but also maliciously so? Say Politician a is afraid of loosing his power to lying scumbag politician b who has no concern for what is true but only winning his own power? Or should that be protected as well?
That should most definitely be protected as well. "all or nothing and all is the only choice", as the GP stated, is pretty clear.
Or you could use those gosh darn useful things called side mirrors, that all cars have, to see if they have someone in them.
And in case you think I'm just an oblivious cager, I do cycle, but for fun and fitness, in places that do have parked cars and no cycle lanes.
And, when there's a person in those cars, the GP's point still holds. You still have to merge in and out of traffic lanes from the bike lane because you know someone is in the car but you don't know what their intentions are.
The problem is then you have contention between cyclists and actual pedestrians, which happens far more frequently than when cyclists use the roads. It also nearly always injures both the cyclist and however many pedestrians get in the way of the now out of control bicycle.
If you pay attention to cyclists on the road, there is no problem because we don't generally want to get hit either. It's not hard to slow down a little and give a little more space as you go by a cyclist.
Yes you can buy a gasoline engine, but then you have to deal with the extra noise it creates. Electrics are significantly quieter and hearing loss is definitely a cost to consider when in such close proximity to engine noise for prolonged periods of time.
Honestly, who gives a shit? The simple solution is stop supporting some industry that will try to sue you for being a patron.