This is pretty sad. I gained much of my early knowledge of computers by communicating with adults online (when "online" meant dialing into BBSes). There were even events called Users' Group meetings, where adults and adolescents would mingle (gasp!) and share information. More often than not, the adults would actually learn something from the "kids" (or at least that was my know-it-all teenager perception). To my knowledge, there were no lawsuits over someone using "bad words" in front of little Johnny, or instances that required anyone to point to a spot on a doll afterward.
Young people *need* adults in their lives. Yes, there will be instances where some adult does something terrible, just like there are (far more) instances where children do terrible things to each other, but on the whole, it's a positive relationship, and extremely rewarding all around. This recent push to separate youth from adults, and then expect them to magically become adult-like at 18, is simply fantasy. I'm not saying they should spend all their time with older people, but neither should it be taken to the other extreme, online or off.
And offtopic, why the fsck does the Supreme Court of Canada look like a ski resort? "Quit lopping off the heads or we'll make you do a DOUBLE diamond run, eh?"
Homosexuality is a dead end, and it contributes to those more traditional groups gaining more and more strength, relative to the "civilized" nations and cultures. Gay marriage and the declining fertility rates go hand in hand. Whether it is causative or not, the correlation is there.
Jesus Christ, do you really think homosexuality will increase because it's legally recognized, or decrease if it's not?
Aside from that, overpopulation is not the solution to anything other than squandering all of our resources as quickly as possible. Have you ever considered that smaller families correlate with wealthy nations *because* small families better preserve wealth, and that large families perpetuate or increase the likelihood of poverty? Go ahead and have 8 kids, have a lower standard of living (for you and your kids), take up a disproportionate amount of per-household resources on the educational system and any other social or community services your avail yourself of, and retire at 75. I'm sure we'll all be better off(?!?) for it because we'll outnumber the gooks and the wetbacks.
Immigration is a red herring. The only concern with illegal immigration is that you lose *any* regulation as to whether you're letting in a criminal vs. someone who wants to be a productive member of society. Aside from that, it doesn't really matter whether people immigrate legally or otherwise -- they're here all the same, "barbaric" culture and all.
Beyond that, geographical location is becoming less and less of an issue, not more of one. Jobs are being replaced by workers overseas who can perform the same task nearly as well (low level customer service) or better (many engineering and manufacturing jobs), and almost always cheaper than their domestic counterparts. Globalization is inevitable, and trying to fight it by campaigning against illegal immigration, railing against NAFTA, or fear mongering with your absurd allegations of the future of our descendants is as futile as the RIAA clutching desperately at the sand of the music industry falling through their fingers. (Or, if you *really* can't see where things as going, replace the RIAA with the horse and buggy industry). Worse, it's counterproductive, because it shifts our focus from remaining competitive through invention and innovation (good things) and tries to accomplish it through isolationism and defending deprecated models of reality (bad things). At best, isolationism allows us to suppress globalization for a few generations until the world rises up against us (militarily, economically, or otherwise) and decides they've had enough of being subjugated (and degraded, as the case may be).
If we're economically successful, people will *want* to be like us. They'll be coming here to be *part* of our culture (as they do today), not to replace it. If we're unsuccessful, then we probably aren't as important and omnipotent as we make ourselves out to be.
It will be interesting to see what happens to humans over the next 10 or so generations as physical strength becomes less important and women achieve more equal status.
Probably nothing. Housecats have been domesticated for thousands of years, and have certainly not relied on physical prowess for the many generations, yet they still retain the speed and cunning required to kill prey (and exercise those abilities to ecologically devastating effect). Moreover, good physical health is neglected at our own peril, at least for now, and exercise will necessarily result in increased strength and endurance. From a biological perspective, it doesn't matter whether you're running 5 miles to hunt a deer or running 5 miles in a gym; the end result is the same.
Exactly. Part of the problem is that the women's movement has fell victim to the belief that being equal means doing what men do. It doesn't. It means demanding respect for yourself as a person and the choices you make, whether that choice is to stay at home, to work in a traditionally female role, OR to be the CEO of a Fortune 500. The "women's movement" has, deliberately or not, lowered the societal value placed on traditionally female roles, and by extension the women who fill them, which does a disservice to both the people who fill those roles and the people who depend on them.
Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study. Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.
By whose measure? The problem seems to be not that high IQ correlates with intelligence, but that intelligence doesn't correlate well with successful decision-making; the application of that intelligence. If I have a saw, but I still choose to "cut" wood by smashing it with a hammer until it breaks, then the fact that I have a saw is essentially irrelevant, except as an indicator of my especially poor decision-making skills. In the same way, it's been suggested that many people with high IQ choose not to exercise their intelligence, instead relying on intuition or resorting to apathy.
250 sheets on the 2600n is a decent tray size compared to many consumer printers, but for the love of God, everybody knows that reams are 500 sheets. Why don't printer manufacturers just make 500 sheet trays? It's not like the extra inch of metal and plastic would cost more than a couple bucks.
I never condoned tailgating or aggressive driving -- that's just another side of the same coin, and certainly not courteous behavior. Neither did I say it was "always the person in front." It IS possible for two people to be wrong, as you may have heard, but the person in front can defuse the situation quickly and easily by exhibiting proper driving etiquette. Yes, EVEN IF the guy behind you is being an ass. As they say, if you're not part of the solution...
God, I hope you're not a cop who actually believes that nonsense. Any measuring device requires calibration to maintain accuracy, including LIDAR.
LIDAR works by comparing time-of-return for the light pulses emitted. A delta zero between samples ALWAYS = 0 speed, regardless of the accuracy of each sample, so measuring the speed of an object at rest is, at best, a functional test, not a performance verification. The samples themselves are created by measuring ticks of an oscillator (timebase). When (not if) the timebase drifts, then the measurement will begin to deviate from nominal, for values > 0. The timebase is affected by a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to: temperature, chemical corrosion, and physical changes from bumps or drops, etc.
And by the way, uncertainty is always +/- ((percent of measurement) + (n units of resolution)).. it's never a strictly fixed value in units of measurement such as the "0.5 - 1MPH" you quoted.
Of course, cops have another reason to not bother with tiny infractions. It wastes too much of their time in court arguing with joe blow that 4mph over the limit is still a violation. Even cops don't like standing in court all day dealing with stupid s###.
It's not so much that it's a *waste* of time, but that to pull over every 4mph speeder they'd be missing other 10+mph speeders. There's enough of the latter to keep the court's docket full in most places, so unless people slow down (ha!) you won't start seeing zero tolerance.
That said, there *are* places with zero tolerance speeding enforcement, usually on certain days of the month announced beforehand, but always in small towns with nothing better to do.
It's not your role to dictate others' speed, just as it's not theirs to dictate yours. Be courteous and move over, and the world will be a better place for everyone.
That wasn't necessarily a criminal act, as others have pointed out. There's no indication of what condition they were in, how they were setup (if at all), or why they were there. The OMG PORNIES angle is suspect as well. Surely if he were hitting porn sites for other-than-legitimate reasons (such as creating or verifying a filter), as the administrator he could have hidden his tracks. Of course he could be guilty as well, but the point is that judgment should be withheld, not lept to from an article written by someone who clearly has no better grasp on the facts than anyone posting here.
Except I'm pretty sure he hasn't had 5000 computers attached to the project for the full 10 years. You don't just go out and buy 5,000 computers in one sitting, especially if you're a school district on a budget, so the number must have scaled some degree to reach that point, even assuming it plateaued at some point in the past few years.
Sleep mode has been around since the mid 90s, and was ubiquitous by 2000. Additionally, there's no indication that the computers are 10 years old, just that he's been installing it on the computers under his authority since that time. I've been running SETI@home (or some other variant of distributed computing) for that long as well, but I no longer own any of the equipment I had 5 years ago, let alone 10.
Exactly. Imagine if the headline was instead, "Xyz School District Discovers Signals of Extraterrestrial Origin." Instead of wanting to lynch this guy, he'd be a hero. It's extremely disappointing how easily persuadable people can be, especially with regards to forming negative opinions.
So he wasted resources for values of waste that include nonprofit research projects. Fine, he's an unsuitable admin. Nothing to see here, replace him and move along.
Yeah, there's really no excuse for not having keyboard/mouse support in console games. Any of the modern consoles have USB ports AND wireless capabilities (unadulterated BT in some cases), and two of them have integrated web browsers! I can only assume that they feel the need to preserve the marketing BS that their unique, revolutionary, miraculous cancer-curing, baby-kissing, joy-giving controllers are so spectacular that there's no need for any alternative; a message that would be utterly obliterated if mouse/keyboard users were permitted to compete head-to-head in FPSes with controller-wielding kool-aid swillers.
Not really. In the US anyway, legislators fill that role, while it's pretty clear that executives *are* leaders. Moreover, they don't represent individuals personally, but the "collective will" of the electorate.
In theory, what you say is true. In practice, unilateral withdraw is not without precedent, and is unlikely to face a legal challenge, let alone a successful one. And treaties can *always* be repealed by the Senate, regardless of international law, or the supposed "consequences" of violating such law (which, to be honest, are inconsequential). The law, as it applies to government, rarely provides any real consequences for violations thereof, ans so the "force" of such laws are weak indeed. For all practical purposes, treaties are still gentlemen's agreements, subject to the ebb and flow of their political support.
Slashdot Mirror
This is pretty sad. I gained much of my early knowledge of computers by communicating with adults online (when "online" meant dialing into BBSes). There were even events called Users' Group meetings, where adults and adolescents would mingle (gasp!) and share information. More often than not, the adults would actually learn something from the "kids" (or at least that was my know-it-all teenager perception). To my knowledge, there were no lawsuits over someone using "bad words" in front of little Johnny, or instances that required anyone to point to a spot on a doll afterward.
Young people *need* adults in their lives. Yes, there will be instances where some adult does something terrible, just like there are (far more) instances where children do terrible things to each other, but on the whole, it's a positive relationship, and extremely rewarding all around. This recent push to separate youth from adults, and then expect them to magically become adult-like at 18, is simply fantasy. I'm not saying they should spend all their time with older people, but neither should it be taken to the other extreme, online or off.
And offtopic, why the fsck does the Supreme Court of Canada look like a ski resort? "Quit lopping off the heads or we'll make you do a DOUBLE diamond run, eh?"
Homosexuality is a dead end, and it contributes to those more traditional groups gaining more and more strength, relative to the "civilized" nations and cultures. Gay marriage and the declining fertility rates go hand in hand. Whether it is causative or not, the correlation is there.
Jesus Christ, do you really think homosexuality will increase because it's legally recognized, or decrease if it's not?
Aside from that, overpopulation is not the solution to anything other than squandering all of our resources as quickly as possible. Have you ever considered that smaller families correlate with wealthy nations *because* small families better preserve wealth, and that large families perpetuate or increase the likelihood of poverty? Go ahead and have 8 kids, have a lower standard of living (for you and your kids), take up a disproportionate amount of per-household resources on the educational system and any other social or community services your avail yourself of, and retire at 75. I'm sure we'll all be better off(?!?) for it because we'll outnumber the gooks and the wetbacks.
Immigration is a red herring. The only concern with illegal immigration is that you lose *any* regulation as to whether you're letting in a criminal vs. someone who wants to be a productive member of society. Aside from that, it doesn't really matter whether people immigrate legally or otherwise -- they're here all the same, "barbaric" culture and all.
Beyond that, geographical location is becoming less and less of an issue, not more of one. Jobs are being replaced by workers overseas who can perform the same task nearly as well (low level customer service) or better (many engineering and manufacturing jobs), and almost always cheaper than their domestic counterparts. Globalization is inevitable, and trying to fight it by campaigning against illegal immigration, railing against NAFTA, or fear mongering with your absurd allegations of the future of our descendants is as futile as the RIAA clutching desperately at the sand of the music industry falling through their fingers. (Or, if you *really* can't see where things as going, replace the RIAA with the horse and buggy industry). Worse, it's counterproductive, because it shifts our focus from remaining competitive through invention and innovation (good things) and tries to accomplish it through isolationism and defending deprecated models of reality (bad things). At best, isolationism allows us to suppress globalization for a few generations until the world rises up against us (militarily, economically, or otherwise) and decides they've had enough of being subjugated (and degraded, as the case may be).
If we're economically successful, people will *want* to be like us. They'll be coming here to be *part* of our culture (as they do today), not to replace it. If we're unsuccessful, then we probably aren't as important and omnipotent as we make ourselves out to be.
It will be interesting to see what happens to humans over the next 10 or so generations as physical strength becomes less important and women achieve more equal status.
Probably nothing. Housecats have been domesticated for thousands of years, and have certainly not relied on physical prowess for the many generations, yet they still retain the speed and cunning required to kill prey (and exercise those abilities to ecologically devastating effect). Moreover, good physical health is neglected at our own peril, at least for now, and exercise will necessarily result in increased strength and endurance. From a biological perspective, it doesn't matter whether you're running 5 miles to hunt a deer or running 5 miles in a gym; the end result is the same.
Exactly. Part of the problem is that the women's movement has fell victim to the belief that being equal means doing what men do. It doesn't. It means demanding respect for yourself as a person and the choices you make, whether that choice is to stay at home, to work in a traditionally female role, OR to be the CEO of a Fortune 500. The "women's movement" has, deliberately or not, lowered the societal value placed on traditionally female roles, and by extension the women who fill them, which does a disservice to both the people who fill those roles and the people who depend on them.
Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study. Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.
By whose measure? The problem seems to be not that high IQ correlates with intelligence, but that intelligence doesn't correlate well with successful decision-making; the application of that intelligence. If I have a saw, but I still choose to "cut" wood by smashing it with a hammer until it breaks, then the fact that I have a saw is essentially irrelevant, except as an indicator of my especially poor decision-making skills. In the same way, it's been suggested that many people with high IQ choose not to exercise their intelligence, instead relying on intuition or resorting to apathy.
The New Scientist article that the GP alluded to above, describing recent studies on the subject still of IQ and successful decision-making, still appears to be free: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart.html
Did you mean hootenanny ?
back when I was young (early 2k's)
Heh.. if you were young in the early 2ks, then you're still young. Get off my lawn!
250 sheets on the 2600n is a decent tray size compared to many consumer printers, but for the love of God, everybody knows that reams are 500 sheets. Why don't printer manufacturers just make 500 sheet trays? It's not like the extra inch of metal and plastic would cost more than a couple bucks.
Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.
I believe the word you were looking for was contingency, not commission.
I never condoned tailgating or aggressive driving -- that's just another side of the same coin, and certainly not courteous behavior. Neither did I say it was "always the person in front." It IS possible for two people to be wrong, as you may have heard, but the person in front can defuse the situation quickly and easily by exhibiting proper driving etiquette. Yes, EVEN IF the guy behind you is being an ass. As they say, if you're not part of the solution...
(Score:-1, Factual)
God, I hope you're not a cop who actually believes that nonsense. Any measuring device requires calibration to maintain accuracy, including LIDAR.
LIDAR works by comparing time-of-return for the light pulses emitted. A delta zero between samples ALWAYS = 0 speed, regardless of the accuracy of each sample, so measuring the speed of an object at rest is, at best, a functional test, not a performance verification. The samples themselves are created by measuring ticks of an oscillator (timebase). When (not if) the timebase drifts, then the measurement will begin to deviate from nominal, for values > 0. The timebase is affected by a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to: temperature, chemical corrosion, and physical changes from bumps or drops, etc.
And by the way, uncertainty is always +/- ((percent of measurement) + (n units of resolution)).. it's never a strictly fixed value in units of measurement such as the "0.5 - 1MPH" you quoted.
Of course, cops have another reason to not bother with tiny infractions. It wastes too much of their time in court arguing with joe blow that 4mph over the limit is still a violation. Even cops don't like standing in court all day dealing with stupid s###.
It's not so much that it's a *waste* of time, but that to pull over every 4mph speeder they'd be missing other 10+mph speeders. There's enough of the latter to keep the court's docket full in most places, so unless people slow down (ha!) you won't start seeing zero tolerance.
That said, there *are* places with zero tolerance speeding enforcement, usually on certain days of the month announced beforehand, but always in small towns with nothing better to do.
And you're what's wrong with the roads..
It's not your role to dictate others' speed, just as it's not theirs to dictate yours. Be courteous and move over, and the world will be a better place for everyone.
That wasn't necessarily a criminal act, as others have pointed out. There's no indication of what condition they were in, how they were setup (if at all), or why they were there. The OMG PORNIES angle is suspect as well. Surely if he were hitting porn sites for other-than-legitimate reasons (such as creating or verifying a filter), as the administrator he could have hidden his tracks. Of course he could be guilty as well, but the point is that judgment should be withheld, not lept to from an article written by someone who clearly has no better grasp on the facts than anyone posting here.
Except I'm pretty sure he hasn't had 5000 computers attached to the project for the full 10 years. You don't just go out and buy 5,000 computers in one sitting, especially if you're a school district on a budget, so the number must have scaled some degree to reach that point, even assuming it plateaued at some point in the past few years.
Sleep mode has been around since the mid 90s, and was ubiquitous by 2000. Additionally, there's no indication that the computers are 10 years old, just that he's been installing it on the computers under his authority since that time. I've been running SETI@home (or some other variant of distributed computing) for that long as well, but I no longer own any of the equipment I had 5 years ago, let alone 10.
Exactly. Imagine if the headline was instead, "Xyz School District Discovers Signals of Extraterrestrial Origin." Instead of wanting to lynch this guy, he'd be a hero. It's extremely disappointing how easily persuadable people can be, especially with regards to forming negative opinions.
So he wasted resources for values of waste that include nonprofit research projects. Fine, he's an unsuitable admin. Nothing to see here, replace him and move along.
I don't know how WUs translate to points, but his stats are here.
Brain of Patient H.M. Being Sliced, Steamed Alive
Yeah, there's really no excuse for not having keyboard/mouse support in console games. Any of the modern consoles have USB ports AND wireless capabilities (unadulterated BT in some cases), and two of them have integrated web browsers! I can only assume that they feel the need to preserve the marketing BS that their unique, revolutionary, miraculous cancer-curing, baby-kissing, joy-giving controllers are so spectacular that there's no need for any alternative; a message that would be utterly obliterated if mouse/keyboard users were permitted to compete head-to-head in FPSes with controller-wielding kool-aid swillers.
Not really. In the US anyway, legislators fill that role, while it's pretty clear that executives *are* leaders. Moreover, they don't represent individuals personally, but the "collective will" of the electorate.
In theory, what you say is true. In practice, unilateral withdraw is not without precedent, and is unlikely to face a legal challenge, let alone a successful one. And treaties can *always* be repealed by the Senate, regardless of international law, or the supposed "consequences" of violating such law (which, to be honest, are inconsequential). The law, as it applies to government, rarely provides any real consequences for violations thereof, ans so the "force" of such laws are weak indeed. For all practical purposes, treaties are still gentlemen's agreements, subject to the ebb and flow of their political support.
That's self gratification, not instant gratification. Although I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that last part...