re: ars, I've sworn off all Conde Nast properties now. I saw the ars moderators engaging in what I thought was abuse of moderator powers, labeling posts "trolls" and getting them minimized when they probably didn't deserve it. A centralized authority picking and choosing what gets suppressed and what doesn't - not what I want to see in a comment system.
I remember when I could go to ars and read about the latest hardware architecture and why it will be better than the last. That was back in the P4 days. They're just not worth reading anymore.
I think you should go talk to a Palestinian, preferably one whose land has been taken away from them as a result of things like the settlements and that apartheid wall Israel is building.
And it's not Israel that's the evil entity. It's the Israeli government. I imagine the Israelis on an individual level are generally pretty cool people.
And for the record, it is FUCKING DISGUSTING that people like you would try to suppress the debate about the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians by throwing the word "anti-Semitic" around. You have no fucking clue what real anti-Semitism looks like, asshole. Shitheads like you are diluting the meaning of that phrase, rendering it useless for describing ACTUAL anti-Semites.
I'm not surprised that the people with the highest incomes pay more in taxes than the people with the lowest incomes. The top 10% of earners also probably had as much income altogether as the bottom 90%. If you make all the money, you'll pay all the taxes.
Saying that your "state funded college" cost you $500 per semester is pretty much cheating unless you account for the costs that the state paid.
FWIW, I agree with the general principle. Even just ten years ago, my tuition was like $4k or $5k a semester. Now my fiance will be paying $12k a semester. WTF?
IMO, what we really need to do is simultaneously fracture both parties. Instead of having a "third party", we also need a fourth party.
I actually got excited for a bit because I thought OWS and TP happening in such temporal proximity could mean that we are arriving upon such a schism. Truly, the Democrats and Republicans are owned by corporate interest, while OWS and TP are powered by the public interest.
By splitting both parties, we can work around the perception that a vote for a third party is a vote for the guy you don't like.
Something to keep in mind is that when you quote someone, a single sentence is never enough. That should be an alarm bell that someone is taking something out of context. Always quote full paragraphs with a link straight to the official source.
Of course, this didn't even bother taking the quote "out of context", it just fabricated the quote out of whole cloth. For one, it was a "quoting" a University press release. For two...the press release didn't even say the word "treated".
As I mentioned in a sibling post here, I have not been able to find any verification that Dr. Norgaard said the words treat, treatment, mental, illness, or hospital (as cpu6502 alleges). I will gladly stand corrected if you can point me to a more reliable source than the Daily Mail LOL. Good luck, though, if you read the Planet Under Pressure link that you yourself tried to post, you will see those words are nowhere to be found.
I always love to look up the context for quotes. So tell me...where did this quote come from? When did the word "treated" get "added" in? Obviously, the word "treated" is the source of all the consternation, with folks jumping to believe that the word implies sending skeptics away to hospitals (as cpu6502 alleges). Where is the proper context, so that we may determine what capacity "treated" was being used in?
Let's start with the Register. (lol, half a step above the Daily Mail!)
I ctrl-f'd for "treat" but found nothing except the original Register quote. I also ctrl-f'd for "hospital" and found nothing. And the original Register "quote" wasn't even quoting her.
I guess you missed the "global" part. Temperature can drop in some areas, and rise in others. So long as there are more ups than downs, the mean will increase.
Compare the amount of blue to the amount of red in this picture.
Don't take any of this as an attack. I'm hoping that when you say "you're more educated and scientific than most", that you will take my words as an attempt to become yet even more educated. I've chosen the Intermediate explanations from Skeptical Science because I believe you when you say you're more scientific than most.
There are other effects to climate change, aside from "global warming". Increased water vapor doesn't lead to ocean acidification. By increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, more of it will end up dissolving into the ocean, raising the pH. Marine ecosystems are very sensitive to changes in pH, and since we are experiencing a rapid increase in CO2 concentration (in terms of geological time scales), there might not be enough time for marine life to evolve around the changing pH. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm
I notice the use of the year "1998". That sets off all kinds of alarm bells. It would be like trying to use the price of gold during 1980 in an attempt to hide the huge increase that it has experienced since 2008. See here for a debunking of the 1998 thing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
As far as Antarctic ice, you're only half-wrong there. The sea ice is increasing, and this is used to imply that it must be getting cooler down there. But the land ice is decreasing, and the decrease is accelerating. Since sea ice is floating, gaining or losing it would have no effect on sea levels; land ice, on the other hand, will increase sea levels when it melts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
Even if the contribution is small, so long as it is consistently in one direction, it can have an overall effect in the long term.
Let's say your bank account had $1000 in it. And every day, I took $1 from you. That's 0.1% of your total - probably within "margin of error" as you say, after all can you recall the exact number of dollars in your bank account?
And yet in less than three years, I will have drained your bank account.
I believe I once read that lung cancer in Wisconsinannually kills about as many American citizens (2940 in the year 2010) than terrorists have in the past 12 years (2996 during the 9/11 attacks)
Define "enough". Of course if you set off an EMP, most electronics will be fried. Is it practical to apply enough EMI to a device to cause a failure? Keep in mind that FDA and FCC tests are pretty stringent and there are a ton of certifications you need in order to sell an implant.
The would-be assassin doesn't learn how to hack medical implants. The assassin goes onto an underground forum and looks for vulns that match a specific target device that the assassin's mark is using.
Well yeah, if you have a CPU lying around on your PCB, and if it has division hardware, then it's easier to use the CPU for a task like that. But another part of designing hardware is knowing how to partition the design space such that you can make the most effective use of computing resources that are available.
The other side of the coin is that the algorithm I outlined above could reasonably compute a 5-digit binary-to-BCD conversion in six clock cycles. Your average embedded CPU would still be handling the first division by the time I have results (assuming it even has division hardware). Digital logic also scales much better than processor clock speeds, so if you needed to do a 20 or more digit conversion, the digital logic solution will be MUCH faster.
I'm curious, though... how would you convert unsigned to ASCII on chip?
I think OP's point is that your average C programmer would just start doing all kinds of dividing; most of the time there is very little hardware support for division, and so if you fed this into a C->HDL converter it would generate massive bloat as it imported some special library to handle division.
My first brute-force guess would involve a state machine (FSM), a comparator (16-bit), two adders (one 4-bit, one 16 bit), two muxes (16-bit and 4-bit, four input), a 16-bit register with clock enable and an associated input mux, and four 4-bit registers with clock enable. The FSM would control the 16-bit mux which selects a constant from four powers of 10 (10,000 to 10), and the output of the mux is connected to the 16-bit adder and the comparator. The other input is the 16-bit register, which also needs a mux for selecting between the argument and the adder's output. This register output is also a comparator input. The comparator is configured for "less than" and its output goes to the FSM so it can make decisions. The FSM also controls a 4-bit wide mux which connects four 4-bit registers that represent the various 10s digits (10,000 to 10) to an adder with the other input set to "1".
1) If the number is greater than 10,000 then inc the "ten-thousands" digit, subtract 10,000 from the argument, and repeat this step. 2) Once it is less than 10,000 then the state machine would walk forward to the thousands digit 3) If the number is greater than 1000, inc the thousands digit, subtract 1000 from the argument, and repeat this step. 4) Once it is less than 1000... (you can extrapolate some here)... n) Once the tens digit has been processed, the remaining argument is the ones digit
This would give you a series of 4-bit numbers. Once the FSM is done (it's important for it to finish first and change all bits simultaneously, so that downstream logic doesn't see glitches), it would append 0x3 to the front of each 4-bit number, turning them into ASCII.
Note that this approach requires very little in terms of hardware resources, at the expense of requiring a variable amount of time to process its inputs. Consider that 00000 would take 6 clock cycles to produce (need a cycle to load the input), while 29,999 would require like 33 clock cycles (no need to do subtractions on the ones digit)
There are other approaches that may be faster in exchange for requiring more hardware. Consider if you had 9 comparators, one for each digit (except 0), and an adder with a 9-input mux; every input would require 6 clock cycles. But this took an extra 8 comparators (and a significantly bigger mux too); size for speed (interestingly, the divider still only gets you 6 clock cycles, and probably takes up many more resources than 9 comparators. But if you could find other work for the divider then time-sharing might make it worth your while, maybe). You could even go all the way and use 32,000+ comparators, if fan-out wouldn't spell doom for such an approach, and then you could always calculate every possible value in 1 clock cycle...but this would require MASSIVE resources. Now if you only needed, say, from 0 to 1000, that might be slightly less unreasonable (perhaps within fanout limitations but probably still unreasonably large).
OPs point is that a good hardware engineer knows about these tradeoffs and handles them appropriately, while a C programmer isn't trained to think about these issues and their language doesn't even naturally express the structures that it will be mapped on to. Writing the kind of C code that you need to properly synthesize what you want feels like saying the alphabet backwards while jumping up and down on one foot while rubbing your belly and patting your head. And that's if you can even figure out how to tell the C synther that since your values only go from 0 to 1000 that it doesn't need all 16-bits of that unsigned short and it could really get away with only 10 bit support.
I doubt we've reached the point where there are so many excess gates lying around that you can use shitty C-to-HDL converters. There is a large excess of CPU cycles but not nearly as much of an excess of gates. You really have to be conscious of how your design will be synthesized because it's very easy for a C-to-HDL converter to really screw up implementation and do terrible things that will bloat the netlist. I've used such a converter before for a small piece of an FPGA program, and I ended up re-writing half of it in HDL anyway because the result wouldn't fit in the FPGA I was using.
Besides, OP is right, C programmers are terrible hardware designers. C is a sequential language that jumps through hoops to be parallel. HDLs are parallel languages that jump through hoops to be sequential. If you want to be a C programmer in a world where HDL is king, your best bet is to implement a soft-core processor like MicroBlaze or Nios, and then have the C code run on that.
When building a new PC I went for the Pentium G620. It's pretty much the lowest-end Sandy Bridge CPU in existence. I've been running this model for a while now.
With Ivy Bridge coming out, hopefully the prices on Sandy Bridge CPUs will come down. Maybe I could move to an i3 on the cheap, then. Or perhaps I'll even wait for Haswell; Sandy Bridge CPUs will probably be dirt cheap by then.
I went to a public school. In fact, I was even attacked unprovoked. Some kid punched me in the face, twice, and I shoved him away so he couldn't hit me anymore before going straight to the office (and then the nurse, because my face was all bloody). I got suspended just like he did. So I know exactly what you're trying to talk about.
But my public school rocked. My teachers were awesome and I learned a great deal from them. No one ever pushed their beliefs onto me, and instead I was given an opportunity to learn a wide variety of topics.
My fiance went to a private school growing up. Her parents blew tens of thousands of dollars so that she could be indoctrinated with beliefs that she knew were bullshit even at that young age.
So forgive me if I don't buy your whole "public schools suck" spiel. Any time the public school is shitty, it's because the folks who live in that district don't want to or can't afford to pay enough in property taxes to afford good teachers.
Cuba is a threat, therefore we should embargo them so that they are desperate. Then when someone who doesn't likes us comes along and offers to help them, they're much more conducive to such help.
Wouldn't it be better to normalize relations with Cuba, so that way they wouldn't want to let someone aim some missiles at their ally?
Even if it was a few calls, it wasn't just CCAC or Pitt.
Threats were also received at The Western Pennsylvania School for the Blind in Pittsburgh, Point Park University and California University of Pennsylvania.
What kinda sick fuck makes a bomb threat to a school for the blind? Seriously. It's almost enough to make me want to believe in hell just so the asshole responsible can burn in it.
The sad thing is they arrested someone but that did not stop the calls. And after that shit that went down at Western Psych, the community's nerves are pretty rattled already.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they won't sue you because /. ate your <
re: ars, I've sworn off all Conde Nast properties now. I saw the ars moderators engaging in what I thought was abuse of moderator powers, labeling posts "trolls" and getting them minimized when they probably didn't deserve it. A centralized authority picking and choosing what gets suppressed and what doesn't - not what I want to see in a comment system.
I remember when I could go to ars and read about the latest hardware architecture and why it will be better than the last. That was back in the P4 days. They're just not worth reading anymore.
I think you should go talk to a Palestinian, preferably one whose land has been taken away from them as a result of things like the settlements and that apartheid wall Israel is building.
And it's not Israel that's the evil entity. It's the Israeli government. I imagine the Israelis on an individual level are generally pretty cool people.
And for the record, it is FUCKING DISGUSTING that people like you would try to suppress the debate about the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians by throwing the word "anti-Semitic" around. You have no fucking clue what real anti-Semitism looks like, asshole. Shitheads like you are diluting the meaning of that phrase, rendering it useless for describing ACTUAL anti-Semites.
I'm not surprised that the people with the highest incomes pay more in taxes than the people with the lowest incomes. The top 10% of earners also probably had as much income altogether as the bottom 90%. If you make all the money, you'll pay all the taxes.
Saying that your "state funded college" cost you $500 per semester is pretty much cheating unless you account for the costs that the state paid.
FWIW, I agree with the general principle. Even just ten years ago, my tuition was like $4k or $5k a semester. Now my fiance will be paying $12k a semester. WTF?
IMO, what we really need to do is simultaneously fracture both parties. Instead of having a "third party", we also need a fourth party.
I actually got excited for a bit because I thought OWS and TP happening in such temporal proximity could mean that we are arriving upon such a schism. Truly, the Democrats and Republicans are owned by corporate interest, while OWS and TP are powered by the public interest.
By splitting both parties, we can work around the perception that a vote for a third party is a vote for the guy you don't like.
Something to keep in mind is that when you quote someone, a single sentence is never enough. That should be an alarm bell that someone is taking something out of context. Always quote full paragraphs with a link straight to the official source.
Of course, this didn't even bother taking the quote "out of context", it just fabricated the quote out of whole cloth. For one, it was a "quoting" a University press release. For two...the press release didn't even say the word "treated".
As I mentioned in a sibling post here, I have not been able to find any verification that Dr. Norgaard said the words treat, treatment, mental, illness, or hospital (as cpu6502 alleges). I will gladly stand corrected if you can point me to a more reliable source than the Daily Mail LOL. Good luck, though, if you read the Planet Under Pressure link that you yourself tried to post, you will see those words are nowhere to be found.
I always love to look up the context for quotes. So tell me...where did this quote come from? When did the word "treated" get "added" in? Obviously, the word "treated" is the source of all the consternation, with folks jumping to believe that the word implies sending skeptics away to hospitals (as cpu6502 alleges). Where is the proper context, so that we may determine what capacity "treated" was being used in?
Let's start with the Register. (lol, half a step above the Daily Mail!)
"Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated"
Which links to the university press release
"Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized before real action can be taken to effectively address threats facing the planet from human-caused contributions to climate change."
Which links to this presentation.
"What social factors drive ongoing environmental degradation? Existing scientific conversations have generally failed to include psychological understanding of individual behavior, or sociological insights regarding culture and social organization. This session highlights key psychological and sociological concepts essential to understanding social inaction. We integrate research on relational trust, social normative beliefs and cultural and political-economic constraints on pro-environmental action."
I ctrl-f'd for "treat" but found nothing except the original Register quote. I also ctrl-f'd for "hospital" and found nothing. And the original Register "quote" wasn't even quoting her.
I guess you missed the "global" part. Temperature can drop in some areas, and rise in others. So long as there are more ups than downs, the mean will increase.
Compare the amount of blue to the amount of red in this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISS_temperature_2000-09_lrg.png
Don't take any of this as an attack. I'm hoping that when you say "you're more educated and scientific than most", that you will take my words as an attempt to become yet even more educated. I've chosen the Intermediate explanations from Skeptical Science because I believe you when you say you're more scientific than most.
Water vapor is in equilibrium and has a very short "half-life" in the atmosphere. If you add too much water vapor, it falls out. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm
There are other effects to climate change, aside from "global warming". Increased water vapor doesn't lead to ocean acidification. By increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, more of it will end up dissolving into the ocean, raising the pH. Marine ecosystems are very sensitive to changes in pH, and since we are experiencing a rapid increase in CO2 concentration (in terms of geological time scales), there might not be enough time for marine life to evolve around the changing pH. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm
The solar debate is actually not on. Lots of papers over the past decade have pretty much laid that one to rest. Solar has an influence, and its influence has been calculated, and it is dwarfed by other factors. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
I notice the use of the year "1998". That sets off all kinds of alarm bells. It would be like trying to use the price of gold during 1980 in an attempt to hide the huge increase that it has experienced since 2008. See here for a debunking of the 1998 thing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
As far as Antarctic ice, you're only half-wrong there. The sea ice is increasing, and this is used to imply that it must be getting cooler down there. But the land ice is decreasing, and the decrease is accelerating. Since sea ice is floating, gaining or losing it would have no effect on sea levels; land ice, on the other hand, will increase sea levels when it melts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
Even if the contribution is small, so long as it is consistently in one direction, it can have an overall effect in the long term.
Let's say your bank account had $1000 in it. And every day, I took $1 from you. That's 0.1% of your total - probably within "margin of error" as you say, after all can you recall the exact number of dollars in your bank account?
And yet in less than three years, I will have drained your bank account.
If you had to choose between starving or eating foods that were made with the assistance of pesticides and fertilizers, which would you choose?
I believe I once read that lung cancer in Wisconsin annually kills about as many American citizens (2940 in the year 2010) than terrorists have in the past 12 years (2996 during the 9/11 attacks)
GP is using the colloquial form of "terrorist" which means "Muslim".
TSA scanning equipment is exempt from CDRH review at the FDA. Your microwave oven is not.
Funny story that. Your microwave oven emits 0 nanosieverts.
Define "enough". Of course if you set off an EMP, most electronics will be fried. Is it practical to apply enough EMI to a device to cause a failure? Keep in mind that FDA and FCC tests are pretty stringent and there are a ton of certifications you need in order to sell an implant.
The would-be assassin doesn't learn how to hack medical implants. The assassin goes onto an underground forum and looks for vulns that match a specific target device that the assassin's mark is using.
Well yeah, if you have a CPU lying around on your PCB, and if it has division hardware, then it's easier to use the CPU for a task like that. But another part of designing hardware is knowing how to partition the design space such that you can make the most effective use of computing resources that are available.
The other side of the coin is that the algorithm I outlined above could reasonably compute a 5-digit binary-to-BCD conversion in six clock cycles. Your average embedded CPU would still be handling the first division by the time I have results (assuming it even has division hardware). Digital logic also scales much better than processor clock speeds, so if you needed to do a 20 or more digit conversion, the digital logic solution will be MUCH faster.
I'm curious, though... how would you convert unsigned to ASCII on chip?
I think OP's point is that your average C programmer would just start doing all kinds of dividing; most of the time there is very little hardware support for division, and so if you fed this into a C->HDL converter it would generate massive bloat as it imported some special library to handle division.
My first brute-force guess would involve a state machine (FSM), a comparator (16-bit), two adders (one 4-bit, one 16 bit), two muxes (16-bit and 4-bit, four input), a 16-bit register with clock enable and an associated input mux, and four 4-bit registers with clock enable. The FSM would control the 16-bit mux which selects a constant from four powers of 10 (10,000 to 10), and the output of the mux is connected to the 16-bit adder and the comparator. The other input is the 16-bit register, which also needs a mux for selecting between the argument and the adder's output. This register output is also a comparator input. The comparator is configured for "less than" and its output goes to the FSM so it can make decisions. The FSM also controls a 4-bit wide mux which connects four 4-bit registers that represent the various 10s digits (10,000 to 10) to an adder with the other input set to "1".
1) If the number is greater than 10,000 then inc the "ten-thousands" digit, subtract 10,000 from the argument, and repeat this step. ...
2) Once it is less than 10,000 then the state machine would walk forward to the thousands digit
3) If the number is greater than 1000, inc the thousands digit, subtract 1000 from the argument, and repeat this step.
4) Once it is less than 1000... (you can extrapolate some here)
n) Once the tens digit has been processed, the remaining argument is the ones digit
This would give you a series of 4-bit numbers. Once the FSM is done (it's important for it to finish first and change all bits simultaneously, so that downstream logic doesn't see glitches), it would append 0x3 to the front of each 4-bit number, turning them into ASCII.
Note that this approach requires very little in terms of hardware resources, at the expense of requiring a variable amount of time to process its inputs. Consider that 00000 would take 6 clock cycles to produce (need a cycle to load the input), while 29,999 would require like 33 clock cycles (no need to do subtractions on the ones digit)
There are other approaches that may be faster in exchange for requiring more hardware. Consider if you had 9 comparators, one for each digit (except 0), and an adder with a 9-input mux; every input would require 6 clock cycles. But this took an extra 8 comparators (and a significantly bigger mux too); size for speed (interestingly, the divider still only gets you 6 clock cycles, and probably takes up many more resources than 9 comparators. But if you could find other work for the divider then time-sharing might make it worth your while, maybe). You could even go all the way and use 32,000+ comparators, if fan-out wouldn't spell doom for such an approach, and then you could always calculate every possible value in 1 clock cycle...but this would require MASSIVE resources. Now if you only needed, say, from 0 to 1000, that might be slightly less unreasonable (perhaps within fanout limitations but probably still unreasonably large).
OPs point is that a good hardware engineer knows about these tradeoffs and handles them appropriately, while a C programmer isn't trained to think about these issues and their language doesn't even naturally express the structures that it will be mapped on to. Writing the kind of C code that you need to properly synthesize what you want feels like saying the alphabet backwards while jumping up and down on one foot while rubbing your belly and patting your head. And that's if you can even figure out how to tell the C synther that since your values only go from 0 to 1000 that it doesn't need all 16-bits of that unsigned short and it could really get away with only 10 bit support.
I doubt we've reached the point where there are so many excess gates lying around that you can use shitty C-to-HDL converters. There is a large excess of CPU cycles but not nearly as much of an excess of gates. You really have to be conscious of how your design will be synthesized because it's very easy for a C-to-HDL converter to really screw up implementation and do terrible things that will bloat the netlist. I've used such a converter before for a small piece of an FPGA program, and I ended up re-writing half of it in HDL anyway because the result wouldn't fit in the FPGA I was using.
Besides, OP is right, C programmers are terrible hardware designers. C is a sequential language that jumps through hoops to be parallel. HDLs are parallel languages that jump through hoops to be sequential. If you want to be a C programmer in a world where HDL is king, your best bet is to implement a soft-core processor like MicroBlaze or Nios, and then have the C code run on that.
When building a new PC I went for the Pentium G620. It's pretty much the lowest-end Sandy Bridge CPU in existence. I've been running this model for a while now.
With Ivy Bridge coming out, hopefully the prices on Sandy Bridge CPUs will come down. Maybe I could move to an i3 on the cheap, then. Or perhaps I'll even wait for Haswell; Sandy Bridge CPUs will probably be dirt cheap by then.
Really? If the government is paying for birth control, then why am I paying health care premiums?
I went to a public school. In fact, I was even attacked unprovoked. Some kid punched me in the face, twice, and I shoved him away so he couldn't hit me anymore before going straight to the office (and then the nurse, because my face was all bloody). I got suspended just like he did. So I know exactly what you're trying to talk about.
But my public school rocked. My teachers were awesome and I learned a great deal from them. No one ever pushed their beliefs onto me, and instead I was given an opportunity to learn a wide variety of topics.
My fiance went to a private school growing up. Her parents blew tens of thousands of dollars so that she could be indoctrinated with beliefs that she knew were bullshit even at that young age.
So forgive me if I don't buy your whole "public schools suck" spiel. Any time the public school is shitty, it's because the folks who live in that district don't want to or can't afford to pay enough in property taxes to afford good teachers.
Cuba is a threat, therefore we should embargo them so that they are desperate. Then when someone who doesn't likes us comes along and offers to help them, they're much more conducive to such help.
Wouldn't it be better to normalize relations with Cuba, so that way they wouldn't want to let someone aim some missiles at their ally?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/university-of-pittsburgh-police-make-arrest-but-bomb-threats-continue/
Even if it was a few calls, it wasn't just CCAC or Pitt.
What kinda sick fuck makes a bomb threat to a school for the blind? Seriously. It's almost enough to make me want to believe in hell just so the asshole responsible can burn in it.
The sad thing is they arrested someone but that did not stop the calls. And after that shit that went down at Western Psych, the community's nerves are pretty rattled already.