Did they put a separate door for the pilots? If they would start making it physically impossible for the passengers to enter the cockpit giving each a seperate exterior door, we could get rid of a bunch of the useless security theater.
Just because something is not an immediate life and death matter, does not mean that doing the right thing isn't still the right thing. The previous poster did include jobs like lawyer after all, and every decision a doctor makes is not life and death. They still have first responsibility to the patient.
I just bought new computers for me and my son. They were $500, and they can play games easily with graphics as good as any current console. They come with HDMI, so, while I do have them plugged into monitors, I can just as easily plug them into my 50 inch plasma. As for controllers, XBox controllers work on Windows with a free driver, Adapters to use Playstation controllers are cheap and widely available, and XBox360 controllers are officially supported on Windows.
Computers do not get slower each year. There is nothing in them that wears out. What you are think of is that each year, games come out that look better for those that upgraded that year, but the games still look great on previous generation PC hardware. This means that you can choose to continue to use your existing hardware, OR upgrade for better graphics. On consoles, you just stick with the existing hardware, and your games don't look significantly better until new hardware comes out.
You are right, Steam is a terrible idea and not a selling point. Unfortunately, consoles are not a lot better off in that area.
The thing to remember is that a console IS a computer. What surprises me is that one of the PC motherboard manufacturers has not taken Linux, licensed a few game engines, built a desktop/dashboard that gives a console feel, dropping it all into one of their all in one motherboards in a livingroom electronics looking case. Someone like Asus, Acer, or even Dell, could in very short order be a major player in the game console market.
Sending a child to their room, or to stand in a corner certainly CAN be quite effective. The key is "if done properly". When someone calls it "Time Out", they are declaring that they are not going to do it properly. The term "Time Out" was coined to make getting sent to the corner sound less harsh. It was intended to tell the child "You didn't do anything wrong, but we need to pause our activity while you gather yourself up." That is not doing it properly.
Some parents use the term so that it doesn't sound like they are punishing their child, so that they are not the "bad guy". This is a bad parent. Some parents use the term because that is what the "experts" say they should do, instead of evaluating what is effective with their child. This is also a bad parent. The second set is particularly prone to failing at the "no toys, books or otherwise anything to distract" part. They figure, that since the "experts" say to put your child in "Time Out", and that is what they did, then they did their part and can tell themselves they did the right thing.
There are many kids that sending them to their room, or the corner simply isn't going to work. They will sing songs quietly in their head, tell themselves stories, or otherwise internally entertain themselves. These children will never learn a lesson from that kind of punishment even when done properly, and thus sending them to the corner/room is neglect. These parents are no better than a parent who would shove a pine tree air fresher down their babies diaper to cover the smell, and then tell themselves that if they cannot smell the feces, then they must be doing a good job.
The first thing that must be done to properly punish your child is to understand why you are doing it. The second is to understand what is going to most effectively get the results you are looking for. The people that use the term "Time Out" generally fail at both of these, as do the people who make the blanket statement that corporal punishment is inherently wrong.
So, how do you feel about the chicken pox vaccine? The disease is less deadly than the flu, but becomes more deadly the longer you put it off. The vaccine has already proven not to be permanent.
Ahhh... The old, If I don't leave marks, I didn't abuse mentality. There is only one reason to punish a child. Just one. That is to associate a particular behavior with discomfort. That's it. Now, there are some people who would rather spank their child, have their child file that away and in a classic Pavlovian response, avoid the behavior. There are other parents who will drag out the discomfort and keep the discomfort mental. A good parent will use one of these methods to steer their child to become the adult that they want them to be. A really good parent will assess their specific child, and will use one or both methods in the proportions that will achieve the greatest results with the least discomfort.
A crappy parent will follow a recipie and believe that if they don't leave marks, they are doing a good job raising their kid. A really crappy parent will punish their child inconsistently so that the child never makes the solid connection that produces the desired results.
Then you have the criminally abusive parents who will punish their child for personal pleasure or gain. While this does unfortunately happen with physical abuse, it is down right pervasive with mental abuse. I see it happen consistently and publicly. Unfortunately, the people that mentally abuse their child, frequently get an extra bonus because when the child behaves exactly as one would expect a mentally abused child to behave, the parent get sympathy, and lifted up as a hero for putting up with the mess they created.
While I would agree that children tend to understand a lot more than they are given credit for (and are considered children for far to long), the reason that they are called children instead of adults is that we recognize that they are not capable of getting it with just an explanation.
Two tell tale signs of an parent that is abusive, lazy, or both, is if you hear them count at their child as a threat, or call their punishment "Time Out".
Technically, the car does lose mass though. When the wheel turns, it pushes away from the ground it has hold of. It just picks up new mass with the next part of the wheel as it moves forward. The same principal could be applied to a space vehicle if it had a big scoop on the front to catch dust, and then accelerated it and shot it out the back. The ship would accellerate and 'not lose mass'. Much like this hypothetical space ship, your car just refuels it's mass at the same speed it uses it up.
You are going to need a better example than that. 1/3 does not equal 0.333... as 0.333... is an approximation. It is a good enough approximation, but it is an approximation none the less. What your example shows is that the base-10 numbering system is fundamentally flawed. It cannot show certain numbers. 1/3 being one of them.
What's hard about it is that it is a parlor trick. The same as using 'magic' to pick your card out of a deck. It is just a nerdier version of it.
That is like asking why anyone would oppose gay marriage. There are just a lot of people that believe "My way is good, any other way is bad." It feeds some egos. It is cognitive disassociation in some cases. It is neo-ludditism in other cases. Sometimes it is just because they had a neighbor who was both an asshole and bragged about his SUV. For some it is just to fit in with what is currently 'cool'. The list goes on.
While I have not been convinced of Global Warming, I absolutely agree with the fact that larger trends are generally easier to predict than specific instances. I usually use roulette as my example. I cannot tell you what the next number to come up is, but after 100,000 spins, I can tell you how often the number 8 will show up withing a pretty small margin of error.
Wow, you took revisionist history to a whole new level with that one. First, there was no video game crash. People just started gaming on "home computers". A game console IS a computer, so the only thing that happened was that Commodore took away Atari's market share. Second, it wasn't clones that killed the Atari. It was the fact that the Atari 2600 was vastly inferior to the Commodore 64. They were not even in the same ballpark. Claiming that the 2600 died because of clones makes about as much sense as saying that the Playstation 1 died because of cloning. Or that the NES died because of cloning. The 2600, Playstation 1 and NES all died because superior systems were released, and people migrated to those new systems.
Yes, a bunch of companies went bankrupt, or shut down their video game divisions after Christmas of '83, but given that many of them were not in business during Christmas of '82, you can hardly call their loss a 'crash'. In fact, many of them were businesses making games that were little more than advertisements. You could say the same thing happens every year when companies take their flash games off of their websites.
Basically the "Video Game Crash of '83" is a piece of fiction for those that don't know what a computer is.
When you go to the mall you have no expectation of privacy outside of the bathroom.
You are clearly wrong about this. The fact that you even said it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are fully aware that the person you responded to DOES have an expectation of privacy in the mall.
So, your friend was a shitty irresponsible parent. Here is another story for you. Before becoming a parent, I would blather on about no-government, yadda, let parents decide and so forth. Now that I am a parent, I still want to be the one that decides what my kids do and don't do. We are becoming an orphanage state, and people like your friend are handing their kids over. If you are saying that now that you are a parent, you want to hand your kid over to the state to raise, then you would also be a bad parent.
I know that is a harsh thing to say, but
"I hear you, but when you become a parent, and your kids become teens, you will be thankful for any help from the government in this area".
Your going to need a hell of a lot more than one bullet. With Lotus Notes replication, when you kill one replica, every other replica just keeps chugging along like nothing ever happened. Then when the replica you shot comes back online, it replicates with it's peers, and the only indication that there was ever a problem are a few lines in the logs.
These kinds of articles are always just troll bait. We now live in a male bashing society that is constantly trying to show how men are not really smart, and that women are really the smart ones. I suppose that we can say that this one isn't so bad because at least it claims we are women's peers. While there very well may be an intelligence difference between men and women, there is enough environmental difference that one is unlikely to be able to find it even with the best of tests.
The biggest factor is that if you take any group of people and split them into two groups. One gets taught that they don't have to provide for themselves, so anything they accomplish is just for their own gratification, and the other is taught that no one is ever going to hand them a free lunch, so they better figure out how they will support themselves, I think we can all figure out which group is going to end up smarter.
It is made abundantly clear to very small children that men need to earn their livings, and women earn a living if they want to. Even in today's society, little girls are informed that they can marry/sleep their way into being supported. No doubt, there will be a certain percentage of people that will end up dumb even if they believe they will need to support themselves, and some people will end up smart even if they don't NEED to be. The reason that it appears that there are more smart men then women isn't because women are not given credit. It isn't because evil men keep them down. It is because the group of smart women consist of the women that WANT to be smart, and the group of smart men include the men that WANT to be smart combined with the group of men that feel they NEED to be smart for survival. It should be no surprise that you get better results from the group that needs it for survival.
If women want to become men's intellectual peers, they need to start sleeping with men for their looks instead of their wallets. They need to make sure that starting at a young age, little girls are taught that they should pay for everything when they date men. Both young boys and young girls need to be taught that it is a woman's responsibility to financially support men, and that if a man supports them financially, the woman is a bum, and unworthy of being in a relationship.
Get these ideas instilled in our youth, and you will see more smart women and fewer smart men.
No, YOU claim that guns are unnecessary because screaming will drive off rapists. I claim that 90,000 rapes a year prove you wrong. Unless you are claiming that none of those 90,000 screamed, you would have to admit that screaming does not easily drive off attackers. It only drives off a perticular subset of attackers. Are you claiming that non of those 90,000 rape victims screamed?
Again, YOU made the claim that there was an easy way to drive off rapists. Thus YOU need to explain 90,000 rapings a year. Anything less is an attempt at deception, since YOU claim to know what does and does not drive off rapists.
A liar is a person who speaks to deceive. He told untruths in that goal by stating that he was exploring the pros and cons (there were no cons explored) and the implication that it was an exploration of the idea, which it obviously was not. How is he not a liar?
Again, explain 90,000 rapes if screaming will easily drive off an attacker. You are avoiding explaining your statement because you know it to be untrue.
You clealrly don't know what many of the words you use mean, including, "unsafe", "design" and "liar". That being said, if you are not claiming that those 90,000 rapes a year were consesual, explain how they happened if all it takes is screaming to drive off a rapist.
It seems to me that you are the liar when you claim that screaming easily fends off a rapest. That you know it, and that you make up lies because they are easier to address than the words spoken. You seem to think that if you make an accusasion against someone else, that they cannot point out that you are in fact doing it.
I have, from a reliable source, pointed out 90,000 cases a year that dispute your claim. To maintain any kind of intellectual honesty, you now need to explain how those 90,000 rapes happened if all it takes is screaming to easily stop a rapist, or you need to dispute them.
You only need a pinhole camera to let everything you want to see in. Sure, that might technically make it not a 'perfect' invisibility cloak, but if you can turn a 6 foot 200 pound man into a 5 millimeter bit of plastic, you have pretty well achived your goal without blinding them.
As for your wife, she could easily defeat an attacker. A screaming woman will actually stop most attackers,
That is just plain stupid. By claiming that screaming will easily defeat an attacker, you are claiming that all the 90 thousands some odd rapes a year were not violent crimes, but in fact totally legal consensual sex. You are one sick puppy.
As I said, when you use cars for only non-necessities, you can talk just because you CAN use a car for something useful, doesn't make all the times that you spew crap that is far worse than cigerette smoke into the air, any better than the smoker. Your statement stance is still one of hypocracy. Amazing that you would repeat a falicy in a response to a post that directly dispelled it. It is almost as if you were just parroting propoganda instead of looking at the facts presented.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they put a separate door for the pilots? If they would start making it physically impossible for the passengers to enter the cockpit giving each a seperate exterior door, we could get rid of a bunch of the useless security theater.
This is a feature that has been in the much maligned Lotus Notes for over a decade.
Just because something is not an immediate life and death matter, does not mean that doing the right thing isn't still the right thing. The previous poster did include jobs like lawyer after all, and every decision a doctor makes is not life and death. They still have first responsibility to the patient.
I just bought new computers for me and my son. They were $500, and they can play games easily with graphics as good as any current console. They come with HDMI, so, while I do have them plugged into monitors, I can just as easily plug them into my 50 inch plasma. As for controllers, XBox controllers work on Windows with a free driver, Adapters to use Playstation controllers are cheap and widely available, and XBox360 controllers are officially supported on Windows.
Computers do not get slower each year. There is nothing in them that wears out. What you are think of is that each year, games come out that look better for those that upgraded that year, but the games still look great on previous generation PC hardware. This means that you can choose to continue to use your existing hardware, OR upgrade for better graphics. On consoles, you just stick with the existing hardware, and your games don't look significantly better until new hardware comes out.
You are right, Steam is a terrible idea and not a selling point. Unfortunately, consoles are not a lot better off in that area.
The thing to remember is that a console IS a computer. What surprises me is that one of the PC motherboard manufacturers has not taken Linux, licensed a few game engines, built a desktop/dashboard that gives a console feel, dropping it all into one of their all in one motherboards in a livingroom electronics looking case. Someone like Asus, Acer, or even Dell, could in very short order be a major player in the game console market.
Sending a child to their room, or to stand in a corner certainly CAN be quite effective. The key is "if done properly". When someone calls it "Time Out", they are declaring that they are not going to do it properly. The term "Time Out" was coined to make getting sent to the corner sound less harsh. It was intended to tell the child "You didn't do anything wrong, but we need to pause our activity while you gather yourself up." That is not doing it properly.
Some parents use the term so that it doesn't sound like they are punishing their child, so that they are not the "bad guy". This is a bad parent. Some parents use the term because that is what the "experts" say they should do, instead of evaluating what is effective with their child. This is also a bad parent. The second set is particularly prone to failing at the "no toys, books or otherwise anything to distract" part. They figure, that since the "experts" say to put your child in "Time Out", and that is what they did, then they did their part and can tell themselves they did the right thing.
There are many kids that sending them to their room, or the corner simply isn't going to work. They will sing songs quietly in their head, tell themselves stories, or otherwise internally entertain themselves. These children will never learn a lesson from that kind of punishment even when done properly, and thus sending them to the corner/room is neglect. These parents are no better than a parent who would shove a pine tree air fresher down their babies diaper to cover the smell, and then tell themselves that if they cannot smell the feces, then they must be doing a good job.
The first thing that must be done to properly punish your child is to understand why you are doing it. The second is to understand what is going to most effectively get the results you are looking for. The people that use the term "Time Out" generally fail at both of these, as do the people who make the blanket statement that corporal punishment is inherently wrong.
So, how do you feel about the chicken pox vaccine? The disease is less deadly than the flu, but becomes more deadly the longer you put it off. The vaccine has already proven not to be permanent.
Ahhh... The old, If I don't leave marks, I didn't abuse mentality. There is only one reason to punish a child. Just one. That is to associate a particular behavior with discomfort. That's it. Now, there are some people who would rather spank their child, have their child file that away and in a classic Pavlovian response, avoid the behavior. There are other parents who will drag out the discomfort and keep the discomfort mental. A good parent will use one of these methods to steer their child to become the adult that they want them to be. A really good parent will assess their specific child, and will use one or both methods in the proportions that will achieve the greatest results with the least discomfort.
A crappy parent will follow a recipie and believe that if they don't leave marks, they are doing a good job raising their kid. A really crappy parent will punish their child inconsistently so that the child never makes the solid connection that produces the desired results.
Then you have the criminally abusive parents who will punish their child for personal pleasure or gain. While this does unfortunately happen with physical abuse, it is down right pervasive with mental abuse. I see it happen consistently and publicly. Unfortunately, the people that mentally abuse their child, frequently get an extra bonus because when the child behaves exactly as one would expect a mentally abused child to behave, the parent get sympathy, and lifted up as a hero for putting up with the mess they created.
While I would agree that children tend to understand a lot more than they are given credit for (and are considered children for far to long), the reason that they are called children instead of adults is that we recognize that they are not capable of getting it with just an explanation.
Two tell tale signs of an parent that is abusive, lazy, or both, is if you hear them count at their child as a threat, or call their punishment "Time Out".
So, are you advocating a ban on car stereos?
The same way you would explain the people that went from a NES to nothing, or a Playstation 1 to nothing.
They also forgot the exceptions to the First Amendment, because constitutional law is complex and has no place in a high school classroom
That is a really sad statement.
Technically, the car does lose mass though. When the wheel turns, it pushes away from the ground it has hold of. It just picks up new mass with the next part of the wheel as it moves forward. The same principal could be applied to a space vehicle if it had a big scoop on the front to catch dust, and then accelerated it and shot it out the back. The ship would accellerate and 'not lose mass'. Much like this hypothetical space ship, your car just refuels it's mass at the same speed it uses it up.
Not that any of that really matters.
You are going to need a better example than that. 1/3 does not equal 0.333... as 0.333... is an approximation. It is a good enough approximation, but it is an approximation none the less. What your example shows is that the base-10 numbering system is fundamentally flawed. It cannot show certain numbers. 1/3 being one of them.
What's hard about it is that it is a parlor trick. The same as using 'magic' to pick your card out of a deck. It is just a nerdier version of it.
That is like asking why anyone would oppose gay marriage. There are just a lot of people that believe "My way is good, any other way is bad." It feeds some egos. It is cognitive disassociation in some cases. It is neo-ludditism in other cases. Sometimes it is just because they had a neighbor who was both an asshole and bragged about his SUV. For some it is just to fit in with what is currently 'cool'. The list goes on.
While I have not been convinced of Global Warming, I absolutely agree with the fact that larger trends are generally easier to predict than specific instances. I usually use roulette as my example. I cannot tell you what the next number to come up is, but after 100,000 spins, I can tell you how often the number 8 will show up withing a pretty small margin of error.
Wow, you took revisionist history to a whole new level with that one. First, there was no video game crash. People just started gaming on "home computers". A game console IS a computer, so the only thing that happened was that Commodore took away Atari's market share. Second, it wasn't clones that killed the Atari. It was the fact that the Atari 2600 was vastly inferior to the Commodore 64. They were not even in the same ballpark. Claiming that the 2600 died because of clones makes about as much sense as saying that the Playstation 1 died because of cloning. Or that the NES died because of cloning. The 2600, Playstation 1 and NES all died because superior systems were released, and people migrated to those new systems.
Yes, a bunch of companies went bankrupt, or shut down their video game divisions after Christmas of '83, but given that many of them were not in business during Christmas of '82, you can hardly call their loss a 'crash'. In fact, many of them were businesses making games that were little more than advertisements. You could say the same thing happens every year when companies take their flash games off of their websites.
Basically the "Video Game Crash of '83" is a piece of fiction for those that don't know what a computer is.
When you go to the mall you have no expectation of privacy outside of the bathroom.
You are clearly wrong about this. The fact that you even said it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are fully aware that the person you responded to DOES have an expectation of privacy in the mall.
I know that is a harsh thing to say, but
"I hear you, but when you become a parent, and your kids become teens, you will be thankful for any help from the government in this area".
is a really over the top.
Your going to need a hell of a lot more than one bullet. With Lotus Notes replication, when you kill one replica, every other replica just keeps chugging along like nothing ever happened. Then when the replica you shot comes back online, it replicates with it's peers, and the only indication that there was ever a problem are a few lines in the logs.
These kinds of articles are always just troll bait. We now live in a male bashing society that is constantly trying to show how men are not really smart, and that women are really the smart ones. I suppose that we can say that this one isn't so bad because at least it claims we are women's peers. While there very well may be an intelligence difference between men and women, there is enough environmental difference that one is unlikely to be able to find it even with the best of tests.
The biggest factor is that if you take any group of people and split them into two groups. One gets taught that they don't have to provide for themselves, so anything they accomplish is just for their own gratification, and the other is taught that no one is ever going to hand them a free lunch, so they better figure out how they will support themselves, I think we can all figure out which group is going to end up smarter.
It is made abundantly clear to very small children that men need to earn their livings, and women earn a living if they want to. Even in today's society, little girls are informed that they can marry/sleep their way into being supported. No doubt, there will be a certain percentage of people that will end up dumb even if they believe they will need to support themselves, and some people will end up smart even if they don't NEED to be. The reason that it appears that there are more smart men then women isn't because women are not given credit. It isn't because evil men keep them down. It is because the group of smart women consist of the women that WANT to be smart, and the group of smart men include the men that WANT to be smart combined with the group of men that feel they NEED to be smart for survival. It should be no surprise that you get better results from the group that needs it for survival.
If women want to become men's intellectual peers, they need to start sleeping with men for their looks instead of their wallets. They need to make sure that starting at a young age, little girls are taught that they should pay for everything when they date men. Both young boys and young girls need to be taught that it is a woman's responsibility to financially support men, and that if a man supports them financially, the woman is a bum, and unworthy of being in a relationship.
Get these ideas instilled in our youth, and you will see more smart women and fewer smart men.
No, YOU claim that guns are unnecessary because screaming will drive off rapists. I claim that 90,000 rapes a year prove you wrong. Unless you are claiming that none of those 90,000 screamed, you would have to admit that screaming does not easily drive off attackers. It only drives off a perticular subset of attackers. Are you claiming that non of those 90,000 rape victims screamed?
Again, YOU made the claim that there was an easy way to drive off rapists. Thus YOU need to explain 90,000 rapings a year. Anything less is an attempt at deception, since YOU claim to know what does and does not drive off rapists.
A liar is a person who speaks to deceive. He told untruths in that goal by stating that he was exploring the pros and cons (there were no cons explored) and the implication that it was an exploration of the idea, which it obviously was not. How is he not a liar?
Again, explain 90,000 rapes if screaming will easily drive off an attacker. You are avoiding explaining your statement because you know it to be untrue.
You clealrly don't know what many of the words you use mean, including, "unsafe", "design" and "liar". That being said, if you are not claiming that those 90,000 rapes a year were consesual, explain how they happened if all it takes is screaming to drive off a rapist.
It seems to me that you are the liar when you claim that screaming easily fends off a rapest. That you know it, and that you make up lies because they are easier to address than the words spoken. You seem to think that if you make an accusasion against someone else, that they cannot point out that you are in fact doing it.
I have, from a reliable source, pointed out 90,000 cases a year that dispute your claim. To maintain any kind of intellectual honesty, you now need to explain how those 90,000 rapes happened if all it takes is screaming to easily stop a rapist, or you need to dispute them.
You only need a pinhole camera to let everything you want to see in. Sure, that might technically make it not a 'perfect' invisibility cloak, but if you can turn a 6 foot 200 pound man into a 5 millimeter bit of plastic, you have pretty well achived your goal without blinding them.
As for your wife, she could easily defeat an attacker. A screaming woman will actually stop most attackers,
That is just plain stupid. By claiming that screaming will easily defeat an attacker, you are claiming that all the 90 thousands some odd rapes a year were not violent crimes, but in fact totally legal consensual sex. You are one sick puppy.
As I said, when you use cars for only non-necessities, you can talk just because you CAN use a car for something useful, doesn't make all the times that you spew crap that is far worse than cigerette smoke into the air, any better than the smoker. Your statement stance is still one of hypocracy. Amazing that you would repeat a falicy in a response to a post that directly dispelled it. It is almost as if you were just parroting propoganda instead of looking at the facts presented.