That is a fine way to handle it, and you are right that you need to teach kids that they have to follow the rules. Of course, what you are doing makes the parental lock, useless, as locking the game at the console is no different than locking it in a safe. In fact, the parental lock and/or safe is worse than what you are doing as it tells the kids that anything they can get access to is ok. Learning that there are things that you CAN do but SHOULDN'T do is a very important lesson that is frequently not tought. For the parents that are not going to teach their kids right from wrong, but instead are going to just try to avoid the conflict all together, the safe is a better option, as it is cross platform.
I don't mind labeling, but the required access control restrictions are a big problem. There is no legitimate definition of a 'game console'. Was the Atari 2600, also known as the Atari VCS (Video COMPUTER system), a 'console' or a computer as the packaging and commercials stated? Is the PS2 with it's hard drive and keyboard a 'console' or a computer. How about the PS3 with the ability to install *nix. What about the C64 or the Atari 800? Is the IPhone a console, since it can play SNES games? Are we going to have to install parental lockout systems into every electronic device? How about the homebrew Amiga 500 clone that is on my desk. Would it be illegal to build in NY after the law goes into effect?
A small safe should suffice for keeping the kids out of your stash. If you can afford a game console, and a game, you can afford the $20 for a small safe. Of course, once the kids decide that they are going to play the game when they are not supposed to, it doesn't matter if the game is out in the open, hidden, locked up, or is at someone else's house.
No, but the fact that he thinks he has stopped his kids ability to view internet material without his knowledge might. Just as you ran a second wire to secure access without your parents knowledge, you cousin can just as easily run a second wire for internet access, or simply connect to someone else's wifi.
The other problem is that "console" is a little like "offensive material". Everybody thinks they know what it is, but really there is no definition that can be used to identify something as one.
Because the world has buses. My rule is to always code under the assumption that I will get hit by a bus. I would expect the same from an admin. It is hard to believe that there was not one single other person that could be trusted him to hold a second password.
Of course, that is in a perfect world, and we have all been known to cut corners now and then. So, I can understand how expecting anyone (including myself) to live up to my ideal standards 100% of the time could be considered unrealistic.
There were analog sticks for the C64. They were not very popular, as there was very little software that used them, and the the games of the time were not well suited to analog controllers anyway.
You were talking about a car with no back seats. This means that the only seats are front seats. So, for a child to ride you would have to ignore your cars warning about not using safety seats, and put them the safety seat anyway.
In California, it is illegal to have a child in a moving vehicle and not in a child 'safety' seat. It doesn't matter how much greater the risk is due to air bags and whatnot.
I only wish that I could get electricity at the amazing rates I consistently see posted here on slashdot. I'm looking at an electric bill now, and the rate starts at $0.115 per kilowatt hour. Once you go over 378 KWH, the rate jumps to $0.13 KWH for the next 113 KWHs. After that the rates go to $0.227/KWH, and this bill doesn't hit the 756 KWH mark for the next jump, but I believe it is ~$0.28 KWH. With an electric car, I would be at a minimum in the next tier up, if not two tiers up. So, I would be paying between $0.30 and $0.40 KWH. So at 35 cents, that would make the cost of replacing one gallon of gas $12.64. Not a real economical choice. Of course, at those prices, photovoltaic panels on the roof would really start to make sense.
"If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer."
The same logic should be used to consider whether they should be strapping their infant child in the BACK seat at all. I have yet to hear of a study that looks at how much more likely a person is to get into an accident with a child in the back seat compared to the front. Every one I've seen (not that many really) has compared the survival rate only of the kids that have already been involved in an accident. I don't know anyone that drives safely while leaning into the back seat to look at that rear facing safety seat, and I don't know a single parent that hasn't done it. The elaborate 3 mirror systems that let you look into a mirror that looks into a mirror that shows your kid is not really a whole lot better for watching the road.
Then I guess that you don't understand that the site decides whether to put a picture on your screen, or just text. Displaying HTML IS controlling your browser. Now, if you decide that the shade of gray that you will tolerate ends with opening a new window, that is dandy. We all have our line that we won't cross, but a blanket statement that the site developer should not control your browser is ignoring the whole point of loading the browser in the first place.
I'm not saying that keeping everything in a single window isn't a better choice, but you do realize that every site you visit controls what your browser does don't you?
Thank You! I knew it was made up for SOME show. I'm sure you can understand my confusion though. After all, Norther Exposure... Babylon 5... It's like I Dream of Jennie and Bewitched!
Someone else will have to run the numbers, but I would guess that buying a shiny new PC that runs off of 2 watts is probably a net gain for the environment than continuing to run that old slow P4 for the next 15 years.
I'm from California too, and I have to say that you've fallen for a prank. Those are made up places for TV shows. Texas was obviously made up for King of the Hill, and Canada was made up for South Park, but I'm not sure what Alaska was made up for... Was it Malcolm in the Middle, or maybe Babylon 5....
Wait a minute. I've heard about the London underground many times when discussing cars in America, and it has been made perfectly clear that on English public transportation, all trips are incredibly fast, no one ever talks, so it is incredibly quit, it is absolutely safe, you never have to sit next to some smelly guy who just pissed himself, and you can pay for it with pocket lint. You must be confused.
"The US does not use inflationary finance, nor does any other developed country. The US hasn't used inflationary finance since the civil war."
"Deficits are paid for by the selling of bonds,"
Uh, yes it does. Borrowing money, then deciding that you get to pay less back, while deciding how much to charge the same person in taxes, IS printing money. It is the same method that is often suggested here when a government talks about an unpopular fine. The suggestion is, "Just raise taxes, and give a tax break to those do what you want". Yes, the way that the Feds print their money is behind a big shell game, but they are doing it all the same.
If you think that deficit spending isn't predicated on the idea that when the time comes to pay it back, the money will have less value, and thus the debt isn't as expensive as it looks, you haven't been paying attention.
Yes we should, because until the worlds population figures out that the only way to clean up the world is to cut the world population, any kind of environmental action is just a stop gap. Since I don't see the worlds population deciding it's a good idea to institute forced limiting of breeding, the killing a large percentage of the worlds population, or even just giving up on modern medicine so that people die 'naturally', I am hoping that we will get at least SOME people off this rock before things get REALLY bad. If and when the worlds population stabilizes, THEN we can talk about putting off other research in favor of cleaning it up.
I'm not arguing that voice is better for everything. I'm just saying that the problems associated with using voice are new. Just 40 years ago, voice dictation was not a problem.
There was a time that people who wrote reports did use voice commands for the entire job. They just used a secretary to transcode it instead of a computer. I'm pretty sure that it worked fairly well. Maybe if that never went away, we wouldn't have the cubical problem we have now.
I don't know, right now virtualization is the big thing. Both AMD and Intel currently have hadware virtualization in the CPU, but as far as I know, there is no hardware virtualization in any of the GPUs. If AMD can use ATI's tech to bring out a GPU/CPU platform that would allow a GPU hypervisor to control 3D surfaces that were each virtualized GPUs via hardware so that any OS running on top of the virtual machine thought it had complete control of the GPU, AMD would be poised for a HUGE win. If I could run WindowsXP (work copy), WindowsXP (Gaming Copy), Ubuntu, and maybe even an experimental OS or two, without having to give up 3D, I would replace my PC today.
That has been my experience. Not at my current job, but every other job I have every had. Part the problem gender quotas is that the people in favor of them don't seem to be able to do simple math. They like to count the number of women, and the number of men in the country, and use that as a basis for the number of people that could go into the field. What they fail to account for is that PEOPLE are lazy. Most people, if given the opportunity, would take a steady stream of cash that comes with no work over working their ass off. Not all people, but most. Those that would keep working would be less likely to take difficult jobs than easy ones.
In our culture, women do not HAVE to work. There are plenty of men that will happily work two jobs to pay their way as long as they are putting out. This is not a slight against women. It is just a recognition that being a housewife/girlfriend/date or whatever you want to call it, is a job opportunity that is available to most women, and very few men. Given that many PEOPLE who have that opportunity will take it, you will find that the number of women who either get full income through dating/marriage or take less difficult jobs because they can supplement their income via dating/marriage is pretty darn high. In fact, the 'housewife' field is so weighted in women's favor that many people don't even believe that a man can have the job. It is not uncommon for people to see a wife without a job as a housewife, but a husband without a job as a bum. So, right off the bat, you can take half of the women out of the job pool, as they get to retire before they even get started.
Then take the fact that kids see this. Kids know that we live in a society where women who don't work are housewives, and men who don't work are bums. This leads to girls growing up thinking about how rich and handsome her husband will be, and boy growing up thinking about how expensive of a car he can get for picking up girls and in turn, how much money he can make. Does this apply to all kids? Obviously not. But it does apply to the majority of them. This training from a young age of boys to look to making lots of money and working hard, and training girls to exploit those boys. So, as they grow older, you will find more girls who have not invested in learning the things necessary to go into the sciences.
Finally, take the fact that everybody is trying to get what few women are left so that they don't look like they discriminate. This leads to women being able to ride the glass elevator to positions that they could not get if they were men. Would men ride the glass elevator if they could? Sure. Taking the best job you can get is not gender specific, but just like being a housewife, it is an opportunity that is just not presented to men as often as women. Now, if you are the best employer, you might be able to beef up ratio, but the women available just are not there in the numbers for everyone to have very many of them working for them. Plus, every time a woman takes a ride on the glass elevator, it leaves an even bigger gap in the hiring pool for the next level down, who in turn have to lower their standards, and thus create an even bigger gap below them. I figure that this is why the women I have met in tech fields who are higher up on the chain, have been more qualified for the jobs they have than those in the middle and lower levels. The farther down the chain you go, the bigger the disparity between available men and women for the job.
This is why their plan will fail. If Congress wants equal numbers of women in the hard sciences and engineering, they will have to start at the bottom and get more women to pay their own way. They will have to either make being given money/goods for being a housewife/girlfriend/date very unattractive, or figure out a way to convince women that they should start supporting men so that men can be the housewives/boyfriend/date that gets paid for.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a fine way to handle it, and you are right that you need to teach kids that they have to follow the rules. Of course, what you are doing makes the parental lock, useless, as locking the game at the console is no different than locking it in a safe. In fact, the parental lock and/or safe is worse than what you are doing as it tells the kids that anything they can get access to is ok. Learning that there are things that you CAN do but SHOULDN'T do is a very important lesson that is frequently not tought. For the parents that are not going to teach their kids right from wrong, but instead are going to just try to avoid the conflict all together, the safe is a better option, as it is cross platform.
I don't mind labeling, but the required access control restrictions are a big problem. There is no legitimate definition of a 'game console'. Was the Atari 2600, also known as the Atari VCS (Video COMPUTER system), a 'console' or a computer as the packaging and commercials stated? Is the PS2 with it's hard drive and keyboard a 'console' or a computer. How about the PS3 with the ability to install *nix. What about the C64 or the Atari 800? Is the IPhone a console, since it can play SNES games? Are we going to have to install parental lockout systems into every electronic device? How about the homebrew Amiga 500 clone that is on my desk. Would it be illegal to build in NY after the law goes into effect?
A small safe should suffice for keeping the kids out of your stash. If you can afford a game console, and a game, you can afford the $20 for a small safe. Of course, once the kids decide that they are going to play the game when they are not supposed to, it doesn't matter if the game is out in the open, hidden, locked up, or is at someone else's house.
No, but the fact that he thinks he has stopped his kids ability to view internet material without his knowledge might. Just as you ran a second wire to secure access without your parents knowledge, you cousin can just as easily run a second wire for internet access, or simply connect to someone else's wifi.
The other problem is that "console" is a little like "offensive material". Everybody thinks they know what it is, but really there is no definition that can be used to identify something as one.
Because the world has buses. My rule is to always code under the assumption that I will get hit by a bus. I would expect the same from an admin. It is hard to believe that there was not one single other person that could be trusted him to hold a second password.
Of course, that is in a perfect world, and we have all been known to cut corners now and then. So, I can understand how expecting anyone (including myself) to live up to my ideal standards 100% of the time could be considered unrealistic.
There were analog sticks for the C64. They were not very popular, as there was very little software that used them, and the the games of the time were not well suited to analog controllers anyway.
You were talking about a car with no back seats. This means that the only seats are front seats. So, for a child to ride you would have to ignore your cars warning about not using safety seats, and put them the safety seat anyway.
In California, it is illegal to have a child in a moving vehicle and not in a child 'safety' seat. It doesn't matter how much greater the risk is due to air bags and whatnot.
"And at what age would that be??"
That right their indicates a complete lack of understanding concerning good child rearing.
I only wish that I could get electricity at the amazing rates I consistently see posted here on slashdot. I'm looking at an electric bill now, and the rate starts at $0.115 per kilowatt hour. Once you go over 378 KWH, the rate jumps to $0.13 KWH for the next 113 KWHs. After that the rates go to $0.227/KWH, and this bill doesn't hit the 756 KWH mark for the next jump, but I believe it is ~$0.28 KWH. With an electric car, I would be at a minimum in the next tier up, if not two tiers up. So, I would be paying between $0.30 and $0.40 KWH. So at 35 cents, that would make the cost of replacing one gallon of gas $12.64. Not a real economical choice. Of course, at those prices, photovoltaic panels on the roof would really start to make sense.
"If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer."
The same logic should be used to consider whether they should be strapping their infant child in the BACK seat at all. I have yet to hear of a study that looks at how much more likely a person is to get into an accident with a child in the back seat compared to the front. Every one I've seen (not that many really) has compared the survival rate only of the kids that have already been involved in an accident. I don't know anyone that drives safely while leaning into the back seat to look at that rear facing safety seat, and I don't know a single parent that hasn't done it. The elaborate 3 mirror systems that let you look into a mirror that looks into a mirror that shows your kid is not really a whole lot better for watching the road.
Then I guess that you don't understand that the site decides whether to put a picture on your screen, or just text. Displaying HTML IS controlling your browser. Now, if you decide that the shade of gray that you will tolerate ends with opening a new window, that is dandy. We all have our line that we won't cross, but a blanket statement that the site developer should not control your browser is ignoring the whole point of loading the browser in the first place.
I'm not saying that keeping everything in a single window isn't a better choice, but you do realize that every site you visit controls what your browser does don't you?
Thank You! I knew it was made up for SOME show. I'm sure you can understand my confusion though. After all, Norther Exposure... Babylon 5... It's like I Dream of Jennie and Bewitched!
Someone else will have to run the numbers, but I would guess that buying a shiny new PC that runs off of 2 watts is probably a net gain for the environment than continuing to run that old slow P4 for the next 15 years.
Sweet!!! I hadn't thought of Cherry 2000 in years!
I'm from California too, and I have to say that you've fallen for a prank. Those are made up places for TV shows. Texas was obviously made up for King of the Hill, and Canada was made up for South Park, but I'm not sure what Alaska was made up for... Was it Malcolm in the Middle, or maybe Babylon 5....
Wait a minute. I've heard about the London underground many times when discussing cars in America, and it has been made perfectly clear that on English public transportation, all trips are incredibly fast, no one ever talks, so it is incredibly quit, it is absolutely safe, you never have to sit next to some smelly guy who just pissed himself, and you can pay for it with pocket lint. You must be confused.
"The US does not use inflationary finance, nor does any other developed country. The US hasn't used inflationary finance since the civil war."
"Deficits are paid for by the selling of bonds,"
Uh, yes it does. Borrowing money, then deciding that you get to pay less back, while deciding how much to charge the same person in taxes, IS printing money. It is the same method that is often suggested here when a government talks about an unpopular fine. The suggestion is, "Just raise taxes, and give a tax break to those do what you want". Yes, the way that the Feds print their money is behind a big shell game, but they are doing it all the same.
If you think that deficit spending isn't predicated on the idea that when the time comes to pay it back, the money will have less value, and thus the debt isn't as expensive as it looks, you haven't been paying attention.
Yes we should, because until the worlds population figures out that the only way to clean up the world is to cut the world population, any kind of environmental action is just a stop gap. Since I don't see the worlds population deciding it's a good idea to institute forced limiting of breeding, the killing a large percentage of the worlds population, or even just giving up on modern medicine so that people die 'naturally', I am hoping that we will get at least SOME people off this rock before things get REALLY bad. If and when the worlds population stabilizes, THEN we can talk about putting off other research in favor of cleaning it up.
"Because you had an office."
Yes. That is the whole point of the comment.
I'm not arguing that voice is better for everything. I'm just saying that the problems associated with using voice are new. Just 40 years ago, voice dictation was not a problem.
There was a time that people who wrote reports did use voice commands for the entire job. They just used a secretary to transcode it instead of a computer. I'm pretty sure that it worked fairly well. Maybe if that never went away, we wouldn't have the cubical problem we have now.
I don't know, right now virtualization is the big thing. Both AMD and Intel currently have hadware virtualization in the CPU, but as far as I know, there is no hardware virtualization in any of the GPUs. If AMD can use ATI's tech to bring out a GPU/CPU platform that would allow a GPU hypervisor to control 3D surfaces that were each virtualized GPUs via hardware so that any OS running on top of the virtual machine thought it had complete control of the GPU, AMD would be poised for a HUGE win. If I could run WindowsXP (work copy), WindowsXP (Gaming Copy), Ubuntu, and maybe even an experimental OS or two, without having to give up 3D, I would replace my PC today.
That has been my experience. Not at my current job, but every other job I have every had. Part the problem gender quotas is that the people in favor of them don't seem to be able to do simple math. They like to count the number of women, and the number of men in the country, and use that as a basis for the number of people that could go into the field. What they fail to account for is that PEOPLE are lazy. Most people, if given the opportunity, would take a steady stream of cash that comes with no work over working their ass off. Not all people, but most. Those that would keep working would be less likely to take difficult jobs than easy ones.
In our culture, women do not HAVE to work. There are plenty of men that will happily work two jobs to pay their way as long as they are putting out. This is not a slight against women. It is just a recognition that being a housewife/girlfriend/date or whatever you want to call it, is a job opportunity that is available to most women, and very few men. Given that many PEOPLE who have that opportunity will take it, you will find that the number of women who either get full income through dating/marriage or take less difficult jobs because they can supplement their income via dating/marriage is pretty darn high. In fact, the 'housewife' field is so weighted in women's favor that many people don't even believe that a man can have the job. It is not uncommon for people to see a wife without a job as a housewife, but a husband without a job as a bum. So, right off the bat, you can take half of the women out of the job pool, as they get to retire before they even get started.
Then take the fact that kids see this. Kids know that we live in a society where women who don't work are housewives, and men who don't work are bums. This leads to girls growing up thinking about how rich and handsome her husband will be, and boy growing up thinking about how expensive of a car he can get for picking up girls and in turn, how much money he can make. Does this apply to all kids? Obviously not. But it does apply to the majority of them. This training from a young age of boys to look to making lots of money and working hard, and training girls to exploit those boys. So, as they grow older, you will find more girls who have not invested in learning the things necessary to go into the sciences.
Finally, take the fact that everybody is trying to get what few women are left so that they don't look like they discriminate. This leads to women being able to ride the glass elevator to positions that they could not get if they were men. Would men ride the glass elevator if they could? Sure. Taking the best job you can get is not gender specific, but just like being a housewife, it is an opportunity that is just not presented to men as often as women. Now, if you are the best employer, you might be able to beef up ratio, but the women available just are not there in the numbers for everyone to have very many of them working for them. Plus, every time a woman takes a ride on the glass elevator, it leaves an even bigger gap in the hiring pool for the next level down, who in turn have to lower their standards, and thus create an even bigger gap below them. I figure that this is why the women I have met in tech fields who are higher up on the chain, have been more qualified for the jobs they have than those in the middle and lower levels. The farther down the chain you go, the bigger the disparity between available men and women for the job.
This is why their plan will fail. If Congress wants equal numbers of women in the hard sciences and engineering, they will have to start at the bottom and get more women to pay their own way. They will have to either make being given money/goods for being a housewife/girlfriend/date very unattractive, or figure out a way to convince women that they should start supporting men so that men can be the housewives/boyfriend/date that gets paid for.