Don't upgrade until a monitor fits your minimum specs.
I held off from buying a new pair of monitors until I could find some within my price range that would add width (moving to widescreen) while keeping my height or increasing it.
I went from two 1280x1024 to two 1920x1080 for ~$190 on black Friday.
The theory is that the laws don't do much to stop people from texting while driving — but instead, leads them to try to hide the activity more.
Examples of that theory in action:
Illegal Drugs leads to uber-dangerous system of dealers, smugglers, and addicts.
Illegal Alcohol leads to the creation of the American "Mob"
Examples of where that theory doesn't work:
Illegal drinking and driving -- Deaths and injuries occur from people's reactions and judgments being impaired, not from them trying to hide a bottle while driving.
Illegal use of cell phone w/o hands free headset -- Deaths and injuries occur from people focusing more intently on what's being discussed on the phone than driving, neck-swiveling being impaired by holding the phone to your head, and the removal of a hand/arm from the process of controlling the car.
Illegal texting while driving -- Deaths and injuries occur from people focusing more intently on what's being discussed on the phone AND disabling one or BOTH hands from the process of controlling the car.
For the situations where people turn to HIDING their texting while driving, the problem isn't the law, it's the idiot whose priorities are MESSED UP. They somehow believe LIFE comes after transportation and communication.
There's only 2 ways to get people to switch to Ubuntu:
1) (Not likely) Make Windows games playable on it. 2) (Possible!) Change the standard directory names to things longer than 3 letters. Even if you're a hyper-involved PC-user (building and fixing your own and others with tons of tweaks), the dive into the various versions of linux is a complete vocabulary shock simply because nothing says what it is. Programs are oddly named and folder titles are super-abbreviated.
I don't buy that headphone audio-only media players can be making such a drastic shift in deaths on the road. People have been running/walkng with cassette, CD, and MP3 players for decades and there hadn't been a shift. How about:
Texting (or headphones AND texting): The standard texting walk requires someone to look DOWN at a phone. This, oddly enough, decreases the pedestrian's field of vision from ~180 degrees along the horizon to 0 degrees at the feet. MP3 players, at the very least, allow people to keep that original field of vision, if potentially decreasing auditory warnings.
Inconsiderate Drivers: Drivers definitely fear other drivers on the road. They are sources of injury to the body, to property, and insurance payments. Most drivers, though, seem to forget that many people still walk around a city. I, for example, have been hit by cars at the same intersection, at the same time of day (just past 8am), on at 4 different occasions. The reason: "Look Left, Turn Right". Bad drivers, late to work, will look to see if there's any oncoming traffic from the left and turn right... while a pedestrian is legally stepping into the crosswalk to cross the street. Boom... pedestrian is hit by quickly-accelerating driver. The shorter the person is, the less likely s/he is lucky enough to be rolled onto the hood (as I have been) and more likely to be dragged underneath and run over.
A Combination of the Above: For those who would prefer to look down at their phones to text while crossing the street, inconsiderate drivers are more of a danger. But if the "cross" light is on, then all the fault still falls on the driver. So, in the end, there can be a multitudes of factors contributing to the deaths of pedestrians on the street, but since they're unlikely to be pedestrians NOT walking in a cross walk, the reasons can be summarized as such: Bad drivers kill people.
It's a brilliant modern invention. They're called shutters! Specifically, in-door shutters with an air-tight seal with the sill and a light, semi-reflected face pointing to the window. The less space between the shutter and the window, the better. It's also great for "blacking out" a room.
Oh, you want to let light in, but not heat? Sorry, that's a physics issue.
Also, in regards to the "house fan" to suck in the nightly cool air, deal with the noise. Seriously. How hoity-toity do you have to be to not use such a great utility because you hear a slight hum? That's a personal issue... one you should really get used to if you want to save a buck.
I've worked in k-12, in high-education outreach, and I currently work in a major university system. I know many methods that work in most Southern California schools and I know many that are destined for failure. The Show Boat School is a definite failure. Here's why:
1) Brain Drain: Every time a newer, better school is built, the school is touted as the future of education. Thus, all the best teachers from around the area want to teach there. This removes necessary institutional knowledge and role-models from other schools.
2) Poor Structural Design: Every Show Boat school I've seen has either turned out to look like a concrete prison to maximize the security of their students/property or is in an artistic building in an affluent neighborhood where prejudice is sufficient to keep "danger" at bay before it hits the school grounds. Either way the students are eventually seen as favorites, spoiled, and wimps.
3) Flawed Philosophy: You can't improve the general education and intelligence of the masses with exclusivity. Bill Gates proved that with his failed attempts to sponsor super-schools. If you want to improve the education of the general populace of the future, you need to focus on educating the *failures* and *at-risk* students more than the ones who are already succeeding. You have to educate from the bottom up. They call this a public school, but it will likely have preference for intra-district transfers, admission applications, and wait-lists.
4) The High Cost of Tech Upkeep: Computers will get dingy, dusty, and their components will be lifted. Peripherals will need to be constantly cleaned or constantly replaced. Software contracts lock schools into expensive exclusivity deals. Network admins, computer teachers, server room, router rooms... And then the constant upgrading... This is an insanely high cost for computers which are yet to show classroom gains sufficient to justify the cost. When the budget cuts hit (and they will...), say good-bye to the system admin and start storing the older computers.
At the end of the day, all the bells and whistles will lose their novelty, be forgotten and everything will settle into being "just a school" with "just regular teachers", "just a regular lunch-lady", "just a regular bell schedule", and nothing will change. It's money down the drain.
Ya, accepting #1 is difficult to accept. It's fiction, after all. But if a discussion is to exist regarding zombies, then one has to accept that fiction as fact. Only after that can the discussion be fun.
Side note: What's with the all the anti-fiction Debbie Downers here? In a Star Wars or Star Trek or Anime or whatever thread, it takes no effort whatsoever for fellow geeks to suspend disbelief and discuss the Force, hyperspace, controlled wormholes, etc and fiction turned real.
Is the zombie fiction so scary that we have to constantly rip ourselves back to the comfort of reality?
Some myths to accept as truth BEFORE considering why a Zombie Outbreak would fail:
(1) Zombies are real (2) The Zombie infection is viral and spread by getting Zombie fluids (blood, saliva, etc) in another body. It also requires an incubation time. (3) Zombies need no form of sustenance (food, drink, oxygen, etc) (4) Zombies eat as an instinct... and it's their only instinct. (5) They can only be killed by destroying their brains (dealing sufficient damage) (6) Zombie "blood" is thick and gooey, does not evaporate, and doesn't seem to circulate (7) Zombies can freeze, but they can also thaw and continue killing (8) Zombies do not run. They shamble. (9) Zombies do not have super-human strength, but, when they're seeking food, they only know Full Power and No Power. (10) Zombies feel no pain (11) Zombies do not tire or need rest
Ok, so assume all of this to be true. Also, assume that a major zombie infection begins in one metropolitan area and is spread by people who've been bitten leaving the scene and spreading the risk around larger geographic areas. So it starts, people move about, and eventually turn into zombies themselves. People panic and run, taking the wounded with them, instead of fighting back. Then the panic gets serious. People start hoarding food, water, and supplies. People become a bit more frivolous with their fire arms. Innocent people are killed. In-fighting begins. Looting. All the while, zombies are still killing and spreading the virus.
That's the real fear... the breakdown of society. People killing people in a panic while zombies are doing the same.
That's also the fantasy, to be honest. Those who those who romanticize about it seeing the society they despise fail and giving opportunity for a reboot.
The key part of the article, of course on the second page, is the following:
"Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review," he tweeted on Monday, referring to the effort by WikiLeaks to convince the Defense Department to join in reviewing the additional 15,000 documents to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who might be placed in danger by its release. "Media won’t take responsibility. Amnesty won’t. What to do?"
Wikileaks went to the Pentagon and/or White House and asked them to assist in the redaction of sensitive things... like the names of civilians. They refused to do so thinking it would prevent the release of the documents. Instead, Wikileaks simply did a cost-benefit analysis and found that the potential danger of the Taliban acquiring the documents, sifting through them, picking out suspect names, and then targeting them was not as valuable as releasing all these documents to the public.
Now, the government is going to try to demonize Wikileaks in every possible way... not because they're endangering lives or missions, but because they are willing to unveil damaging secrets. It's the Pentagon Papers all over again. The government will lose this battle in the long run.
Then again, as the immediate effects of the leaking of the Pentagon Papers showed, the public doesn't care. Ideally, people would be marching on DC, enraged at military mismanagement and lack of direction, but, just like before, they get excited by the sensationalism and then they forget.
Ok, we use official seals to prove, or at least strongly suggest, the origin of authority. But what if someone comes to your door with "a" badge or "an" ID card you don't immediately recognize. Especially when dealing with someone in plain clothes, it would be rather beneficial to actually know which insignia is fake, which is real, and which comes from which department. But... if you aren't allowed to know in advance what an official insignia looks like, aren't you just making yourself susceptible to fraud?
My integrity is worth breaking the rules, but I know that if I rebel against the system in power, it's not likely that they'll publicly appreciate it.
Fight for civil rights or stand up against what you believe to be a corrupt and incompetent system that will only put public information in danger-- either way, you're going to get hurt.
A good person knows this, does it anyway, and just hopes that history can tell the difference between criminal and person with a good cause.
No... you missed the entire post. What causes injuries to the US soldiers and those aiding them is people who don't like them. The ones with bombs, guns, and rockets.
So what causes those people to aim those guns, rockets, and plants those bombs in such ways to hurt soldiers? Is it an information leak to the American public? Is it public discussion regarding innocent deaths in Afghanistan... or is the THE DEATHS THEMSELVES?
The clear and present danger doesn't come from *talking* about the actions of the American government, but from the actions themselves.
Newspapers didn't aid the Northern Vietnamese when they published the Pentagon Papers, but instead the Government and Military hurt the America with their secretive and malicious actions in Southeast Asia.
Just the same, releasing more information about the military actions in Afghanistan (especially after taking all possible precautions to prevent harm before release) does not cause injury to the US. It's the actions the US is ashamed to talk about that cause the harm.
I have a hard time accepting the "digital arts" as "high art". Art in itself is the use of human abilities to describe human experience (perceived or imagined). Once you accept enough computer capability into the practice, you blur, or even jump over, the line separating computer and human design. Digital video and computer animation skip right over that line as far as I am concerned. The computers involved do such a massive majority of the work that all the human as to do is *design*. While those designs may be art, the final product is the result of technology and an artistic mind... but just not art itself.
An incentive is a artificial, beneficial, effect of an action. If one was to get paid $10,000 for earning a degree, the degree would be the *result* of work and the $10,000 would be the *incentive*. With flat-price, unlimited download subscriptions, a person has the *freedom* to use as much bandwidth as s/he *needs*, but in no way has an *incentive* to use as much as s/he *could*.
That slight correction in language completely invalidates the assertion.
Seriously, I do. In an attempt to create a safer society while preventing attempts at "Pre-Crime" and not further taxing our "post-crime" response paradigm, I focus all my attention at education and mentoring students. Instill an appreciation for knowledge of history (and the mistakes of other people), logic (and thus decision-making), and give the kids the tools they need to reject marketing (which tells them they need things they don't... which leads them to be victims of strain).
I've worked with high-function autistic, Asperger's, and ADHD students. In almost all the schools (all of them small), there's a "quiet room": a locked, padded room in case a student goes into a flailing tantrum. Ya, it happens. Ya, it's really quite dangerous for the other children and staff around the angry child. So, if they feel like that's the last resort, they go into the quiet room and chill out.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't upgrade until a monitor fits your minimum specs. I held off from buying a new pair of monitors until I could find some within my price range that would add width (moving to widescreen) while keeping my height or increasing it. I went from two 1280x1024 to two 1920x1080 for ~$190 on black Friday.
The theory is that the laws don't do much to stop people from texting while driving — but instead, leads them to try to hide the activity more.
Examples of that theory in action:
Illegal Drugs leads to uber-dangerous system of dealers, smugglers, and addicts.
Illegal Alcohol leads to the creation of the American "Mob"
Examples of where that theory doesn't work:
Illegal drinking and driving -- Deaths and injuries occur from people's reactions and judgments being impaired, not from them trying to hide a bottle while driving.
Illegal use of cell phone w/o hands free headset -- Deaths and injuries occur from people focusing more intently on what's being discussed on the phone than driving, neck-swiveling being impaired by holding the phone to your head, and the removal of a hand/arm from the process of controlling the car.
Illegal texting while driving -- Deaths and injuries occur from people focusing more intently on what's being discussed on the phone AND disabling one or BOTH hands from the process of controlling the car.
For the situations where people turn to HIDING their texting while driving, the problem isn't the law, it's the idiot whose priorities are MESSED UP. They somehow believe LIFE comes after transportation and communication.
There's only 2 ways to get people to switch to Ubuntu:
1) (Not likely) Make Windows games playable on it.
2) (Possible!) Change the standard directory names to things longer than 3 letters. Even if you're a hyper-involved PC-user (building and fixing your own and others with tons of tweaks), the dive into the various versions of linux is a complete vocabulary shock simply because nothing says what it is. Programs are oddly named and folder titles are super-abbreviated.
I don't buy that headphone audio-only media players can be making such a drastic shift in deaths on the road. People have been running/walkng with cassette, CD, and MP3 players for decades and there hadn't been a shift. How about:
Texting (or headphones AND texting): The standard texting walk requires someone to look DOWN at a phone. This, oddly enough, decreases the pedestrian's field of vision from ~180 degrees along the horizon to 0 degrees at the feet. MP3 players, at the very least, allow people to keep that original field of vision, if potentially decreasing auditory warnings.
Inconsiderate Drivers: Drivers definitely fear other drivers on the road. They are sources of injury to the body, to property, and insurance payments. Most drivers, though, seem to forget that many people still walk around a city. I, for example, have been hit by cars at the same intersection, at the same time of day (just past 8am), on at 4 different occasions. The reason: "Look Left, Turn Right". Bad drivers, late to work, will look to see if there's any oncoming traffic from the left and turn right... while a pedestrian is legally stepping into the crosswalk to cross the street. Boom... pedestrian is hit by quickly-accelerating driver. The shorter the person is, the less likely s/he is lucky enough to be rolled onto the hood (as I have been) and more likely to be dragged underneath and run over.
A Combination of the Above: For those who would prefer to look down at their phones to text while crossing the street, inconsiderate drivers are more of a danger. But if the "cross" light is on, then all the fault still falls on the driver. So, in the end, there can be a multitudes of factors contributing to the deaths of pedestrians on the street, but since they're unlikely to be pedestrians NOT walking in a cross walk, the reasons can be summarized as such: Bad drivers kill people.
It's a brilliant modern invention. They're called shutters! Specifically, in-door shutters with an air-tight seal with the sill and a light, semi-reflected face pointing to the window. The less space between the shutter and the window, the better. It's also great for "blacking out" a room.
Oh, you want to let light in, but not heat? Sorry, that's a physics issue.
Also, in regards to the "house fan" to suck in the nightly cool air, deal with the noise. Seriously. How hoity-toity do you have to be to not use such a great utility because you hear a slight hum? That's a personal issue... one you should really get used to if you want to save a buck.
I've worked in k-12, in high-education outreach, and I currently work in a major university system. I know many methods that work in most Southern California schools and I know many that are destined for failure. The Show Boat School is a definite failure. Here's why:
1) Brain Drain: Every time a newer, better school is built, the school is touted as the future of education. Thus, all the best teachers from around the area want to teach there. This removes necessary institutional knowledge and role-models from other schools.
2) Poor Structural Design: Every Show Boat school I've seen has either turned out to look like a concrete prison to maximize the security of their students/property or is in an artistic building in an affluent neighborhood where prejudice is sufficient to keep "danger" at bay before it hits the school grounds. Either way the students are eventually seen as favorites, spoiled, and wimps.
3) Flawed Philosophy: You can't improve the general education and intelligence of the masses with exclusivity. Bill Gates proved that with his failed attempts to sponsor super-schools. If you want to improve the education of the general populace of the future, you need to focus on educating the *failures* and *at-risk* students more than the ones who are already succeeding. You have to educate from the bottom up. They call this a public school, but it will likely have preference for intra-district transfers, admission applications, and wait-lists.
4) The High Cost of Tech Upkeep: Computers will get dingy, dusty, and their components will be lifted. Peripherals will need to be constantly cleaned or constantly replaced. Software contracts lock schools into expensive exclusivity deals. Network admins, computer teachers, server room, router rooms... And then the constant upgrading... This is an insanely high cost for computers which are yet to show classroom gains sufficient to justify the cost. When the budget cuts hit (and they will...), say good-bye to the system admin and start storing the older computers.
At the end of the day, all the bells and whistles will lose their novelty, be forgotten and everything will settle into being "just a school" with "just regular teachers", "just a regular lunch-lady", "just a regular bell schedule", and nothing will change. It's money down the drain.
Ya, accepting #1 is difficult to accept. It's fiction, after all. But if a discussion is to exist regarding zombies, then one has to accept that fiction as fact. Only after that can the discussion be fun.
Side note: What's with the all the anti-fiction Debbie Downers here? In a Star Wars or Star Trek or Anime or whatever thread, it takes no effort whatsoever for fellow geeks to suspend disbelief and discuss the Force, hyperspace, controlled wormholes, etc and fiction turned real.
Is the zombie fiction so scary that we have to constantly rip ourselves back to the comfort of reality?
The premise assumes fiction is fact. "7 Scientific reasons a Zombie Outbreak would fail" assumes there are zombies.
derp derp
Bravo! I'd +1 if I could!
Doh... forgot:
(12) Zombies don't decay. It has something to do with the gooey blood.
Some myths to accept as truth BEFORE considering why a Zombie Outbreak would fail:
(1) Zombies are real
(2) The Zombie infection is viral and spread by getting Zombie fluids (blood, saliva, etc) in another body. It also requires an incubation time.
(3) Zombies need no form of sustenance (food, drink, oxygen, etc)
(4) Zombies eat as an instinct... and it's their only instinct.
(5) They can only be killed by destroying their brains (dealing sufficient damage)
(6) Zombie "blood" is thick and gooey, does not evaporate, and doesn't seem to circulate
(7) Zombies can freeze, but they can also thaw and continue killing
(8) Zombies do not run. They shamble.
(9) Zombies do not have super-human strength, but, when they're seeking food, they only know Full Power and No Power.
(10) Zombies feel no pain
(11) Zombies do not tire or need rest
Ok, so assume all of this to be true. Also, assume that a major zombie infection begins in one metropolitan area and is spread by people who've been bitten leaving the scene and spreading the risk around larger geographic areas. So it starts, people move about, and eventually turn into zombies themselves. People panic and run, taking the wounded with them, instead of fighting back. Then the panic gets serious. People start hoarding food, water, and supplies. People become a bit more frivolous with their fire arms. Innocent people are killed. In-fighting begins. Looting. All the while, zombies are still killing and spreading the virus.
That's the real fear... the breakdown of society. People killing people in a panic while zombies are doing the same.
That's also the fantasy, to be honest. Those who those who romanticize about it seeing the society they despise fail and giving opportunity for a reboot.
The key part of the article, of course on the second page, is the following:
"Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review," he tweeted on Monday, referring to the effort by WikiLeaks to convince the Defense Department to join in reviewing the additional 15,000 documents to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who might be placed in danger by its release. "Media won’t take responsibility. Amnesty won’t. What to do?"
Wikileaks went to the Pentagon and/or White House and asked them to assist in the redaction of sensitive things... like the names of civilians. They refused to do so thinking it would prevent the release of the documents. Instead, Wikileaks simply did a cost-benefit analysis and found that the potential danger of the Taliban acquiring the documents, sifting through them, picking out suspect names, and then targeting them was not as valuable as releasing all these documents to the public.
Now, the government is going to try to demonize Wikileaks in every possible way... not because they're endangering lives or missions, but because they are willing to unveil damaging secrets. It's the Pentagon Papers all over again. The government will lose this battle in the long run.
Then again, as the immediate effects of the leaking of the Pentagon Papers showed, the public doesn't care. Ideally, people would be marching on DC, enraged at military mismanagement and lack of direction, but, just like before, they get excited by the sensationalism and then they forget.
Lose-Lose
Ok, we use official seals to prove, or at least strongly suggest, the origin of authority. But what if someone comes to your door with "a" badge or "an" ID card you don't immediately recognize. Especially when dealing with someone in plain clothes, it would be rather beneficial to actually know which insignia is fake, which is real, and which comes from which department. But... if you aren't allowed to know in advance what an official insignia looks like, aren't you just making yourself susceptible to fraud?
My integrity is worth breaking the rules, but I know that if I rebel against the system in power, it's not likely that they'll publicly appreciate it.
Fight for civil rights or stand up against what you believe to be a corrupt and incompetent system that will only put public information in danger-- either way, you're going to get hurt.
A good person knows this, does it anyway, and just hopes that history can tell the difference between criminal and person with a good cause.
No... you missed the entire post. What causes injuries to the US soldiers and those aiding them is people who don't like them. The ones with bombs, guns, and rockets.
So what causes those people to aim those guns, rockets, and plants those bombs in such ways to hurt soldiers? Is it an information leak to the American public? Is it public discussion regarding innocent deaths in Afghanistan... or is the THE DEATHS THEMSELVES?
The clear and present danger doesn't come from *talking* about the actions of the American government, but from the actions themselves.
Newspapers didn't aid the Northern Vietnamese when they published the Pentagon Papers, but instead the Government and Military hurt the America with their secretive and malicious actions in Southeast Asia.
Just the same, releasing more information about the military actions in Afghanistan (especially after taking all possible precautions to prevent harm before release) does not cause injury to the US. It's the actions the US is ashamed to talk about that cause the harm.
It's the moderation and the personal filtering options that makes Slashdot great.
I have a hard time accepting the "digital arts" as "high art". Art in itself is the use of human abilities to describe human experience (perceived or imagined). Once you accept enough computer capability into the practice, you blur, or even jump over, the line separating computer and human design. Digital video and computer animation skip right over that line as far as I am concerned. The computers involved do such a massive majority of the work that all the human as to do is *design*. While those designs may be art, the final product is the result of technology and an artistic mind... but just not art itself.
An incentive is a artificial, beneficial, effect of an action. If one was to get paid $10,000 for earning a degree, the degree would be the *result* of work and the $10,000 would be the *incentive*. With flat-price, unlimited download subscriptions, a person has the *freedom* to use as much bandwidth as s/he *needs*, but in no way has an *incentive* to use as much as s/he *could*.
That slight correction in language completely invalidates the assertion.
Seriously, I do. In an attempt to create a safer society while preventing attempts at "Pre-Crime" and not further taxing our "post-crime" response paradigm, I focus all my attention at education and mentoring students. Instill an appreciation for knowledge of history (and the mistakes of other people), logic (and thus decision-making), and give the kids the tools they need to reject marketing (which tells them they need things they don't... which leads them to be victims of strain).
The best way to reduce crime? Be better people.
And at the time, the people were wrong. They're still wrong, too.
Again, they profess a supreme creator, but say nothing about the establishment upon Christian beliefs.
Putting a dangerous kid in a pen isn't uncommon.
I've worked with high-function autistic, Asperger's, and ADHD students. In almost all the schools (all of them small), there's a "quiet room": a locked, padded room in case a student goes into a flailing tantrum. Ya, it happens. Ya, it's really quite dangerous for the other children and staff around the angry child. So, if they feel like that's the last resort, they go into the quiet room and chill out.
Ayn Rand? Ya... it stung a bit to reference the site...
The school board yesterday and prior has been discussing and weighing the topics and having open discussion.
It's not an open discussion if you think with a closed mind.