It happens all the time at districts in our area. The parents call the school and complain, so the school assumes it is a "computer error" and forgive the debt.
But, there is always a deeper problem. The kids at most schools have an ID number that they punch in. Most schools I have seen, do not have any system to double check that these students actually type in their number. Heck, many just go punch a number that they know works, and move on. I would guess that many of their parents encourage this, because then they don't owe as much! I have worked in a few schools, and had my accounts go deeply into the negative without me ever purchasing anything. The only school that I know doesn't have these problems is one near my home, where the students still must buy paper lunch tickets. That system isn't perfect, but sadly it works better than any others I have seen.
Secondly, it was a joke about evolution, not a serious comment on how evolution works or doesn't.
Thirdly, there is a bit of irony in your statement about evolution. I think you should have your family start dueling with flaming glass shards. Then let me know how flaming-glass-shard resistant they become.
Fourthly, your comments are correct and logical, but you should really try to relieve some stress. May I suggest flaming lightbulbs?
Are you forgetting that we are talking about 2 idiots who filled a glass tube with gasoline and ignited it? What part about that isn't funny?
I suppose the humor could be deminished if they were forced to do it, or were doing it to save someones life, or because it was how they fed their family, but these people DID IT FOR RECREATION!
If these 2 live, and produce offspring, I will lose all faith in evolution.
Decent point, however the problem I see is that everyone is looking at the cost of PRODUCING a set amount of electricity. That is irrelevent. You need to look at the total cost of production and DISPOSAL. The cost of disposal from a Nuclear plant is hudreds of times higher than the cost of disposal from a coal plant. Some could even argue that disposal costs are INFINITE! There are other options other than nuclear. Coal isn't perfect either, but just like nuclear, new coal plants could be built clean.
A few years back, 3m designed (I believe it was 3m) a filter for coal emmissions to remove ALL harmful materials from the emissions. 100%. The problem was cost. I believe one of the main materials was crushed diamond or something like that. Good Ol' W decided that they shouldn't be required, and funding shouldn't be spent on development and requirement of such filtering systems. So, should we blame the cancer rates on the coal plants, then build nuclear, or simply look to who is to blame for these emissions.
Does anyone know anything about these filters? I didn't find a reference in a quick search, and I'm not crazy.......well maybe.
Parent: "A standard windows install takes an ~hour for the OS, an ~hour for MS office, an ~ hour or two for for the latest critical updates"
Grandparent: "The last time I installed Windows, it took me roughly a day and a half to have everything ready to roll so I could get some work done"
If it takes you 3-4+ hours to install Windows, MS Office, and the critical updates, then you are doing something wrong! I just installed windows 98 (longer instal than XP) on a 166mhz system, with Office 2000, and "44 critical updates" (not including the updates to the updates), and that only took 1/2 the time you quoted above.
Heck, installing XP, Office 2000, and all critical updates on my new machine took under 2 hours. XP itself was only about 20 minutes.
I run linux on one of my machines, and love a good Linsucks vs Winblows debate, but I want the numbers to be realistic.
I agree, though I need to vent...
Firstly, public transportation was ruined by the automotive industry. Our goverment let them buy out the public transportation, and shut them down, thus forcing everyone to buy cars. Then, the goverment promoted the urban sprawl problem by developing highways going into employment locations, all while encouraging housing developments far distances away from the employment areas (mostly right after WWII). So, the American dream could then be obtained, but required a lot of driving/commuting. Now it has sadly become the American way of life.
Secondly, walking and bicycle riding would require exercise. How would us Americans choke ourselves on our hotdogs and twinkies if we were too busy walking to work? Besides, our shortened life expectancy should help reduce fuel consumption, except that cars now need to haul around bigger and bigger asses.
Thirdly, I am just upset because our local politicians refuse to encourage the bicycling tourism that is HUGE in my area. Instead they insist on spending the money on adding parking spaces where bike lanes once existed.
Fourthly, those of you that consider this to be troll are probably part of the problem. Have another ding dong as you sit in rush hour traffic in your SUV complaining about gas prices. I wonder what kind of "mileage" bicycles recieve if you look at just plain Energy as the fuel measure.
40mpg is impressive. I drive a 1988 Chevy Cavilier (well, the 1/2 that still is attached). At 55mph I average 38-40mpg, though at 70mph it drops to 30-35mpg. Also, the car was sold when the speed limits were 55mph in most locations, and during a "fuel crisis" so it is geared for that speed.
I have always wondered why my nearly 20-year-old car can get almost 40mpg, but yet even the best modern cars can't achieve that! Heck, our other 1980's car (larger car) gets nearly 30mpg! They both have over 160K miles on them, and have been heavily abused, yet I can't find a used car that averages more than 35mpg.
My disclaimer, I am not a physist, but I do enjoy reading articles such as this one.>
What do you mean by..."To measure it, one must have a method of controlling it...". Why do we have to control it to measure it? We measure gravity all the time, don't we?
Also, I have read several times that we are going to need to wait for a supernova event, or something like this, in order to use our "gravity detectors" to help us determine the speed of gravity. Why does it need to be something so large? Why can't this be done with other bodies of mass?
Also, hasn't there already been several expiriments which show quite clearly that the speed of gravity is within 1% of the speed of light?
Schools are known for doing this when having teachers apply. For some reason, it is thought that teachers should know how to use a typewriter. The Acrobat full version doesn't make sence though.
"It's just that a lot of people out there use the wrong tool for the job quite a bit."
Exactly! People keep saying how PDF files are good for X, bad for Y. In reality (where I sometimes visit), pdf files are often used in places when other formats would work much better, and this is giving them a bad name. My biggest pet peeve is when I download a job application in PDF format, and it says I must TYPE on the application. The problem is, the person who made the damn file didn't set it up so I could type on it!
4.0 was mentioned because one of the previous posters mentioned that PDF is better than Word because on Word you have to make sure you have a new enough version. I thought it was clear that PDFs were the same (although 4.0 will do a decent job on most documents).
I am not sure that "infinitly" scalable is really all that important. Scalable to some degree is, but not infinite. So, use a jpeg at high enough resolution, or even a PNG. Why would you need it to be larger than a single page?
Anyway, we are offtrack here, and I am starting to debate from a side that I don't fully support, purely for the purpose of debate. My original point was that it would be quite easy for MS to dethrone PDF files, and I think it should happen. Most users do not like PDF files, and get frustrated when they are required to use a 3rd party piece of software just to view some text.
I still use Reader 4.0, which is why I mentioned it. It works quite well actually. My intention was to see what purpose people here have for promoting PDF, and as I expected, many of the purposes are exactly the reasons that PDF is not preferred by many. I had to bring up the word 4.0 thing because another poster claimed that Word was inferior due to you needing a new enough version to read the file. Acr Reader is no different.
I just like 4.0 because it "just works" while not dragging my computer to a crawl.
PDF is an output format.
PDF is an output format.
PDF is an output format.
I guess I don't see the advantage in PDF over something like Word. Word files can be opened in several applications, where pdf files require acrobat. Also, PDFs still have the problem of having the correct version. Try opening a modern made PDF file with acrobat 4.0.
I guess we should just transport all documents as jpegs and everyone is happy. You can open it in nearly any application, it can be printed to any size you want, you don't have to worry about versions or fonts, etc.....
I am not so sure. The Sheep don't really know what is going on, but most of them know that they HATE pdf files. "Why can't it just open?" or "Why not be a normal webpage?" are comments I hear a lot. Also, they get frustrated when I explain to them that their computer is running slow because they have 20 programs running in the background, like Adobe, Real, Quicktime, etc........ They do slowly learn taht they do not like PDF files, Real networks, and other formats which want their players running all the time. I know they can be turned off, but these sheep do not realize this. Anyway, the educated of these users seem to dislike PDF files the most, and I believe it would be quite easy for Microsoft to unseat PDF.
What advantages do PDF files have over other formats such as plain old HTML, and Word files? Having all of the files contained all in one document? When is that useful? Only when someone downloads it right? Ahhhh, but 95% of the adobe documents that you download are not setup to be typed on directly, and you must print the darn thing to write by hand. SO, at that point you should have just used HTML to build your page.
From all of this, i have concluded that gods job is getting easier. He once had to control.......
Meteorology
Health/Medicine
Geology
Botony
Chemistry
Physics
and all other fields of study
Now he only has to control chance and luck. I suppose chance/luck is the only thing that we cannot remove from gods control. That is unless we write our own random number generator.
Okay, firstly, I am not a follower of any major religion, and I have not read the bible, so that is the purpose of this question...
After reading that article, and then reading another article advertised on the same page here I was starting to feel as if i would be surprised if we DIDN'T find evidence of life on mars. Anyway, I was just wondering what remifications such a finding would have on the bible followers. Is there any reference in the bible as to whether life on other planets exists. Almost every scientific discovery is met with religous opposition, so I was wondering if anyone had any opinions from the religous area. Does the bible say anything about life on other planets?
I actually find your post quite offensive. I sure hope that the "trucker filter" filters stuff like this out. It is much more offensive than seeing a boob!
I suppose the truckers can just turn to other alternatives, like checkers, scrabble, hookers, etc..........
Slashdot Mirror
It happens all the time at districts in our area. The parents call the school and complain, so the school assumes it is a "computer error" and forgive the debt.
I know I can go double the legal limit before I am impaired
That might be true, but it might also be the problem.
But, there is always a deeper problem. The kids at most schools have an ID number that they punch in. Most schools I have seen, do not have any system to double check that these students actually type in their number. Heck, many just go punch a number that they know works, and move on. I would guess that many of their parents encourage this, because then they don't owe as much! I have worked in a few schools, and had my accounts go deeply into the negative without me ever purchasing anything. The only school that I know doesn't have these problems is one near my home, where the students still must buy paper lunch tickets. That system isn't perfect, but sadly it works better than any others I have seen.
First off, it's spelled "two".
First off, who cares.
Secondly, it was a joke about evolution, not a serious comment on how evolution works or doesn't.
Thirdly, there is a bit of irony in your statement about evolution. I think you should have your family start dueling with flaming glass shards. Then let me know how flaming-glass-shard resistant they become.
Fourthly, your comments are correct and logical, but you should really try to relieve some stress. May I suggest flaming lightbulbs?
I'm from the southern US, and anytime I hear the words "Hey ya'll watch this!" .. I run!
That is the funniest thing I have read on slashdot for a LONG time!!! Most of my family is from the southern US, so I can openly laugh at this.
Is it commonly followed by a splash of chicken feathers, cool-whip, and weed-trimmer parts? Maybe that is just my family.
And I don't think a dude and a dudette deserve to die because they used an astonishingly-ill-designed fake lightsabre.
I do.
Are you forgetting that we are talking about 2 idiots who filled a glass tube with gasoline and ignited it? What part about that isn't funny?
I suppose the humor could be deminished if they were forced to do it, or were doing it to save someones life, or because it was how they fed their family, but these people DID IT FOR RECREATION!
If these 2 live, and produce offspring, I will lose all faith in evolution.
Decent point, however the problem I see is that everyone is looking at the cost of PRODUCING a set amount of electricity. That is irrelevent. You need to look at the total cost of production and DISPOSAL. The cost of disposal from a Nuclear plant is hudreds of times higher than the cost of disposal from a coal plant. Some could even argue that disposal costs are INFINITE! There are other options other than nuclear. Coal isn't perfect either, but just like nuclear, new coal plants could be built clean.
A few years back, 3m designed (I believe it was 3m) a filter for coal emmissions to remove ALL harmful materials from the emissions. 100%. The problem was cost. I believe one of the main materials was crushed diamond or something like that. Good Ol' W decided that they shouldn't be required, and funding shouldn't be spent on development and requirement of such filtering systems. So, should we blame the cancer rates on the coal plants, then build nuclear, or simply look to who is to blame for these emissions.
Does anyone know anything about these filters? I didn't find a reference in a quick search, and I'm not crazy.......well maybe.
Parent: "A standard windows install takes an ~hour for the OS, an ~hour for MS office, an ~ hour or two for for the latest critical updates"
Grandparent: "The last time I installed Windows, it took me roughly a day and a half to have everything ready to roll so I could get some work done" If it takes you 3-4+ hours to install Windows, MS Office, and the critical updates, then you are doing something wrong! I just installed windows 98 (longer instal than XP) on a 166mhz system, with Office 2000, and "44 critical updates" (not including the updates to the updates), and that only took 1/2 the time you quoted above.
Heck, installing XP, Office 2000, and all critical updates on my new machine took under 2 hours. XP itself was only about 20 minutes.
I run linux on one of my machines, and love a good Linsucks vs Winblows debate, but I want the numbers to be realistic.
I agree, though I need to vent...
Firstly, public transportation was ruined by the automotive industry. Our goverment let them buy out the public transportation, and shut them down, thus forcing everyone to buy cars. Then, the goverment promoted the urban sprawl problem by developing highways going into employment locations, all while encouraging housing developments far distances away from the employment areas (mostly right after WWII). So, the American dream could then be obtained, but required a lot of driving/commuting. Now it has sadly become the American way of life.
Secondly, walking and bicycle riding would require exercise. How would us Americans choke ourselves on our hotdogs and twinkies if we were too busy walking to work? Besides, our shortened life expectancy should help reduce fuel consumption, except that cars now need to haul around bigger and bigger asses.
Thirdly, I am just upset because our local politicians refuse to encourage the bicycling tourism that is HUGE in my area. Instead they insist on spending the money on adding parking spaces where bike lanes once existed.
Fourthly, those of you that consider this to be troll are probably part of the problem. Have another ding dong as you sit in rush hour traffic in your SUV complaining about gas prices. I wonder what kind of "mileage" bicycles recieve if you look at just plain Energy as the fuel measure.
40mpg is impressive. I drive a 1988 Chevy Cavilier (well, the 1/2 that still is attached). At 55mph I average 38-40mpg, though at 70mph it drops to 30-35mpg. Also, the car was sold when the speed limits were 55mph in most locations, and during a "fuel crisis" so it is geared for that speed.
I have always wondered why my nearly 20-year-old car can get almost 40mpg, but yet even the best modern cars can't achieve that! Heck, our other 1980's car (larger car) gets nearly 30mpg! They both have over 160K miles on them, and have been heavily abused, yet I can't find a used car that averages more than 35mpg.
My disclaimer, I am not a physist, but I do enjoy reading articles such as this one.>
What do you mean by..."To measure it, one must have a method of controlling it...". Why do we have to control it to measure it? We measure gravity all the time, don't we?
Also, I have read several times that we are going to need to wait for a supernova event, or something like this, in order to use our "gravity detectors" to help us determine the speed of gravity. Why does it need to be something so large? Why can't this be done with other bodies of mass? Also, hasn't there already been several expiriments which show quite clearly that the speed of gravity is within 1% of the speed of light?
Either way, it is old news.
"it actually took place 2.2 billion years ago"
Schools are known for doing this when having teachers apply. For some reason, it is thought that teachers should know how to use a typewriter. The Acrobat full version doesn't make sence though.
"It's just that a lot of people out there use the wrong tool for the job quite a bit."
Exactly! People keep saying how PDF files are good for X, bad for Y. In reality (where I sometimes visit), pdf files are often used in places when other formats would work much better, and this is giving them a bad name. My biggest pet peeve is when I download a job application in PDF format, and it says I must TYPE on the application. The problem is, the person who made the damn file didn't set it up so I could type on it!
4.0 was mentioned because one of the previous posters mentioned that PDF is better than Word because on Word you have to make sure you have a new enough version. I thought it was clear that PDFs were the same (although 4.0 will do a decent job on most documents).
I am not sure that "infinitly" scalable is really all that important. Scalable to some degree is, but not infinite. So, use a jpeg at high enough resolution, or even a PNG. Why would you need it to be larger than a single page?
Anyway, we are offtrack here, and I am starting to debate from a side that I don't fully support, purely for the purpose of debate. My original point was that it would be quite easy for MS to dethrone PDF files, and I think it should happen. Most users do not like PDF files, and get frustrated when they are required to use a 3rd party piece of software just to view some text.
I still use Reader 4.0, which is why I mentioned it. It works quite well actually. My intention was to see what purpose people here have for promoting PDF, and as I expected, many of the purposes are exactly the reasons that PDF is not preferred by many. I had to bring up the word 4.0 thing because another poster claimed that Word was inferior due to you needing a new enough version to read the file. Acr Reader is no different. I just like 4.0 because it "just works" while not dragging my computer to a crawl.
PDF is an output format.
PDF is an output format.
PDF is an output format.
I guess I don't see the advantage in PDF over something like Word. Word files can be opened in several applications, where pdf files require acrobat. Also, PDFs still have the problem of having the correct version. Try opening a modern made PDF file with acrobat 4.0.
I guess we should just transport all documents as jpegs and everyone is happy. You can open it in nearly any application, it can be printed to any size you want, you don't have to worry about versions or fonts, etc.....
Ahhhh, good point! I do not have any adobe software, but would someone with the full version of acrobat be able to edit these files?
I am not so sure. The Sheep don't really know what is going on, but most of them know that they HATE pdf files. "Why can't it just open?" or "Why not be a normal webpage?" are comments I hear a lot. Also, they get frustrated when I explain to them that their computer is running slow because they have 20 programs running in the background, like Adobe, Real, Quicktime, etc........ They do slowly learn taht they do not like PDF files, Real networks, and other formats which want their players running all the time. I know they can be turned off, but these sheep do not realize this. Anyway, the educated of these users seem to dislike PDF files the most, and I believe it would be quite easy for Microsoft to unseat PDF.
What advantages do PDF files have over other formats such as plain old HTML, and Word files? Having all of the files contained all in one document? When is that useful? Only when someone downloads it right? Ahhhh, but 95% of the adobe documents that you download are not setup to be typed on directly, and you must print the darn thing to write by hand. SO, at that point you should have just used HTML to build your page.
The gulf side means you have to worry about the weather more. When was the last time you heard of a nasty storm on the west coast?
Couldn't the next person in line record my voice, and then be able to use that to bypass this?
From all of this, i have concluded that gods job is getting easier. He once had to control.......
Meteorology
Health/Medicine
Geology
Botony
Chemistry
Physics
and all other fields of study
Now he only has to control chance and luck. I suppose chance/luck is the only thing that we cannot remove from gods control. That is unless we write our own random number generator.
Okay, firstly, I am not a follower of any major religion, and I have not read the bible, so that is the purpose of this question...
After reading that article, and then reading another article advertised on the same page here I was starting to feel as if i would be surprised if we DIDN'T find evidence of life on mars. Anyway, I was just wondering what remifications such a finding would have on the bible followers. Is there any reference in the bible as to whether life on other planets exists. Almost every scientific discovery is met with religous opposition, so I was wondering if anyone had any opinions from the religous area. Does the bible say anything about life on other planets?
I actually find your post quite offensive. I sure hope that the "trucker filter" filters stuff like this out. It is much more offensive than seeing a boob!
I suppose the truckers can just turn to other alternatives, like checkers, scrabble, hookers, etc..........