It may be that organizations who use this as an employment tool don't care what the cause of stress is, they feel it is dangerous. For better or worse. I'm not advocating for such an attitude; just advocating the idea that the attitude exists, and is the cause of the use of polygraphs.
Yes, you could easily fool a veteran FBI agent with a fake polygraph machine. You'd need a veteran operator to run the box, of course. And another one under the table to wiggle the needles at the right times. But very do-able. The machine doesn't do anything, except flush out the scared, people who react strongly to scary questions, and people cheating on the test. The scared are probably not great FBI agents, long term. Those might not be false positives at all, just another thing they test for. People who react strongly to scary questions actually might be great potential agents, especially if they appear to "keep their cool" at the same time. The empty box would not create this false positive. And people ready to cheat the test, you might catch the same number. The net effect might be to reduce false positives, and still catch the same number of cheaters trying to hide something; mainly, trying to hide that they're willing to cheat and lie on paperwork to make their job easier.
Tech support workers often fancy themselves as knowledgeable, but I say ask the IT staff supporting them!
And they're idiots too, just ask the infrastructure development team.
And I have inside word from a product engineer that the infrastructure team doesn't even know what the product is, or why they company they work at exists.
And even the marketing team knows that the product engineers never build the product that was actually promised and sold.
We had some moron who claimed that polygraphs don't detect lies, but luckily there was an experienced operator to explain, "no, it doesn't detect general lies, but sometimes it detects people trying to cheat on the test, which is a category of lie." So they don't work in the way they were originally intended, or in the way the public believes, but they do indeed detect a certain type of dishonesty. It works better than a photocopier, because it is a real machine that does real stuff, so even an educated schemer can fall into the trap of trying to "trick" it.
Polygraph is a load of shit, as a technology. No question. But that fact gives me no sympathy at all for people who lie to try to get around it. Obviously, the polygraph operators don't deserve very much "benefit of the doubt," but if there is solid evidence of cheating, then it doesn't matter if the test can't detect any other type of lie. Cheating is cheating, and if they want credit for not playing the lame game, they don't have to agree to it in the first place. There are lots of legal jobs, recognized as upstanding by the community, which I would never accept because they violate my principles. If you agree to the test, take it straight; if you change your mind, change your job. The high road is always the easier path in the end, because it is self-consistent.
McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
Do you just make up the lies, or do you recycle them from AM radio? Nobody else served it that hot. Nobody else had to change the temperature they were serving coffee at. Have you ever owned a restaurant? Do you know anybody who works in a restaurant? The only way to think that temperature is normal is to be in complete ignorance of serving temperatures or burn safety, and also to refuse to read the facts about the case.
They all do it, it just isn't advertised how because few people want that.
Just install the ad-blocker, and then manage your own list subscription. Depending on the blocker, you might need an empty list file. Then nothing is blocked, because there are no blocking rules to start with. You'll still have all the normal tools like "select element to hide," etc.
It is kinda funny, but when I first installed an ad-blocker back in the 90s my main job was writing a website that generated banner ads. I was constantly white-listing and de-listing clients. What really disappointed me with the whole thing is that almost none of the people using my service cared what their ad looked like, if it had nice aesthetics, if people would enjoy seeing it. They just wanted to figure out how to make shit flash, or look like it was moving. A tasteful way of implementing a requested feature was never appreciated; they were always mad that it wasn't less tasteful. Non-profits, amusingly, weren't interested in even using it because they weren't trying to save money; they'd just pay a contract artist a couple hundred dollars to hand-design a banner image.
I don't mind threats of pay-walls. If they don't want the public to have the material, then I assume it is not a good basis for discourse. It is useless, because even if I subscribed I can't discuss it with other humans, because I can't link to it for them to read it. Sites that have this attitude are not going to be good resources to rely on IMO. When they self-select out of my decision-making process by erecting barriers to keep me out, that is less time I have to waste to evaluate their offering of information.
Information used to be scarce. It was normal that it was paid for. Information is no longer scarce. If you don't get value just from me using your information, then you're probably pricing yourself out of the conversation by not understanding that information scarcity has changed in a way that will not go away unless society as we know it no longer exists.
Just make decent, maybe targeted ads, which are unintrusive and dont slow down my computer too much, and we can discuss that i change my behaviour.
See this advertisers? You don't need to fear the small minority of us who are allergic to your bullshit. You can ignore us, because all you have to is be minimally non-offensive and there is a large majority who will line up and bleet happily. No, you never had to resort to being obnoxious and toxic. You'd have been better off in the long run on the high road.
Yeah, you want to make money off content, and don't have any content that either has value, or that you care about transmitting to the world. If you weren't making a buck, your website wouldn't have anything to say, and so it probably doesn't have anything to say.
Like slashdot. The website sucks. The editors aren't even very good. The reason to come here isn't to give them money, it is to interact with other users; who aren't getting paid for providing the content!
Get a real job. I run commercial websites, BTW. Just for perspective.;)
The person who wants "something for free" is the jerk making money for merely manipulating people into choosing a product. It isn't like you're even advocating advertising that provides useful product information; just a revenue stream, by any means, just to fund fluff that shouldn't exist and can't survive by itself.
The solution isn't to "steal articles," (which is silly, because users of websites don't want to read the same thing again that they already read; except when they do and went back) the solution is obviously to write articles about things you care about, including as a small part of whatever useful thing it is you do. Note that lots of companies that make products and provide actual services have websites, and the only advertising on their sites are unpaid ads for their own products and services; something which isn't even blocked by ad-blockers! Many have blogs and knowledgebases with "articles." Also, many non-profit, community, and volunteer efforts have websites. With content. And aren't ad-supported at all. The content is often higher than commercial blogs, too; and the authors aren't even getting paid.
They tried to do that to two of my teachers in middle school. Failed both times. The first teacher just kept acting totally normal, and presumably enjoyed the trip, and "nothing happened." The second teacher calmly walked to the nurse's office, said what he believed was happening, and got a week of extra paid leave.
It sounds like a good prank, and the joke-version that people retell sounds believable, but the copycats have a pretty low success rate.
Nope, they'd be entirely in a State-level chain-of-command. It is kinda like the EU; even where the local authorities are required to followed guidelines from "above," they're often not actually in any sort of broader chain-of-command outside their country.
All these sorts of local police, school district officials, mayors, etc., are under the State chain-of-command with their Governor at the top. Even where there are federal guidelines, they attach the guidelines to receiving federal money, and if they need to enforce it they have to go through the courts because there is no chain-of-command that bridges State and Federal officials.
The most criticism they would get from Texas officials would be something like, "gosh guys, this is making us all look bad here."
The most the President could do would be to "invite" them to the White House. They'd just say "no" and make him look powerless and meddling. He's much better off just criticizing them via twitter, as he is. It is a "teachable moment" and the lesson is that "his teachers failed him."
Dear child, I find your Faith in the ability of small Texas communities to change and become inclusive even to Muslims as a breath of fresh air in these cynical times. Yes, I believe you, they can change like night to day, yes, they can grow from the worst to the best, if only their victims hold their heads high and continue suffering the abuse in order to show their abusers how wrong it is.
That has always worked in the South before. Just give it some time.
The only thing that makes it a bomb is explosives. From the picture nothing even remotely looked like it could be explosive.
And the corollary is, of course, that the only thing that makes it a bomb trigger is being connected to a bomb.
So the special snowflakes claiming it is a "potential bomb trigger" are making the mistake of thinking that it is potentially connected to a bomb. But that was checked, and it is known if it was connected to a bomb or not. So there is no potential for it to have been connected thusly.
I'm not sure yet, but my theory is they don't understand the word "is," or the temporal concept that it represents.
This kid built, knowingly or not, an actual triggering device out of an alarm clock.
No he didn't.
He built a clock. A clock is not the same as a bomb trigger. If you keep on insisting it is, then literally every watch and phone the kids are wearing/carrying is a potential bomb trigger.
*gasp!* The phone the cop is carrying is also a potential bomb trigger! So is his radio! So is his tazer! So is the drop-gun in his sock! He has more in his car, too. You know who else has potential bomb triggers in their pockets? Every teacher in the school. You know who else does? The kid with lunch money in his pocket. You know why? Radio Shack.
Sorry to poke holes in your knee-jerk Obama hating, but President Obama said very early in this whole thing that it is a teachable moment and that Ahmed's teachers failed him.
Don't let reality interfere with your hating-points, Jr.
No, kids should learn if they did something wrong they should know when to detect an illegal interrogation, and then tell them right away where all the other evidence is so that when the fruits of that interrogation get thrown out, all the evidence will too.
Oh, wait, maybe that was a different moral lesson.
I strongly advise looking for the lawyer before resorting to defecating on the floor.
While there are numerous troubling details in this story, Texas is a shithole. It was a digital clock. I have no trouble believing that Officer Billy-Bob and Mayor Christian Crusader have trouble understanding the "broader... purpose" of a digital clock. If it was a world clock with 3 time zones and 24 hour time, he'd still be in the interrogation room.
"Does this mean you can blow up a bomb in three different places at once? In different parts of the world? Holy Smokes Y'all!"
Maybe if you phrased the situation more like, "you ever wonder how you can know if the Dunkin Donuts is open, without even driving down there to check?"
Maybe somebody could bribe the County Medical Examiner to explain clocks to them.
He'll be back in jail next week when they find his metric laser caliper.
There are actual pictures of the clock floating around the interwebs. You might consider acquiring access to the information superhighway so that you can view these pictures.
There was no "disassembled alarm clock with wires soldered to it." There was a home-made circuit board, connected by ribbon cables to a small battery and digital display. There was no taken-apart alarm clock with drama-department wires attached to road flares, or any such nonsense. There was no Wile. E. Coyote alarm clock contraption. There was no part of the device that looked like explosives.
The teacher who claims to have "thought" it looked like a bomb picked it up and walked off with it, and sent the student to the office... without evacuating anybody. If the teacher has an IQ above 65, then I'm gonna call bull-pucky on having thought it actually looked like a bomb. If the teacher is a former special-ed student living the dream, OK, I can believe the story, and maybe it is just a "training issue."
I thought that it was primarily because McDonald's served a hot beverage in a cup that easily collapses when you grab it, and the lid pops off. Now their cups are very rigid even with no lid.
No, guessing things that are easily looked up is not "thinking. You did not "think" that.
McDonalds stood their ground and refused to lower their coffee temperature to a safe level, or an industry-standard level. They really did have scalding hot coffee that was hotter than what consumers would expect, because it was way hotter than every other chain, hotter than standard commercial coffee equipment heats it to when used according to manufacturer's specifications. They simply did not care about the injuries that numerous people had suffered. Coffee doesn't even taste better when brewed super-hot, it tastes worse. But, their customers don't know or care about coffee quality, and if it was hot or not is all they really report on.
Cups were changed later, for whatever other reasons. Nobody was asking that they change their cups, or do something different than everybody else. They were asked to serve coffee that it is in the temperature range that food and drink are customarily served in the United States, and that is regarded as safe for humans.
When my dad was a hippie in the sixties and lived briefly in Milwaukee they had the same "red line" for "long-hairs" as for blacks. He literally walked half a block into the wrong neighborhood, and was stopped by the police and told which side of town he was allowed in.
The difference is, as a long-hair he was driven back to "his side of town." If he was black, he'd have probably spent a night in jail to "explain the situation." That was before they realized they could just shoot blacks, of course.
Back then, I'm also not sure being "brown" would have even been different than "black."
Yeah, if you're printing digital art that is a reasonable option that can produce great results.
When it comes to fine art printing services like in the story, that is almost none of the business though. When I see plotter prints in galleries, the artist almost always has their own plotter and is doing experimental mixed-media. I did see some great plotter work based on running edge filters on photos, and mixing that with original bitmapped sections. I don't think the artist sold any, though.
Yeah, a lot of people don't understand even the basics of the situation.
The Japanese public had been fed, and believed, propaganda claiming that the United States doesn't take POWs except as slaves. They were taught that all the civilians would be tortured and killed, except those who became sex slaves. Children and old ladies had been doing military drills learning to wield bayonets to fight to the death when the Americans entered the bomb shelters. Every analysis I've seen agrees that the Japanese public believed this propaganda, and indeed many civilians had to be killed in the places captured conventionally, because they kept fighting even after their were no more soldiers protecting them. If somebody is taking shots at the door to a bunker you're trying to enter, the standard military solution is to toss in a grenade or two. You can't talk them out when they believe you're a Devil come to torture them to death.
The US casualties would have been higher too, obviously. But the argument that invading by land would have killed less civilians... that is not an argument usually made by historians. And the non-nuclear technique that reduces US military casualties (a desired outcome, especially in a defensive war like WWII) is fire-bombing. Japan would have been 100 Dresden's.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be that organizations who use this as an employment tool don't care what the cause of stress is, they feel it is dangerous. For better or worse. I'm not advocating for such an attitude; just advocating the idea that the attitude exists, and is the cause of the use of polygraphs.
Yes, you could easily fool a veteran FBI agent with a fake polygraph machine. You'd need a veteran operator to run the box, of course. And another one under the table to wiggle the needles at the right times. But very do-able. The machine doesn't do anything, except flush out the scared, people who react strongly to scary questions, and people cheating on the test. The scared are probably not great FBI agents, long term. Those might not be false positives at all, just another thing they test for. People who react strongly to scary questions actually might be great potential agents, especially if they appear to "keep their cool" at the same time. The empty box would not create this false positive. And people ready to cheat the test, you might catch the same number. The net effect might be to reduce false positives, and still catch the same number of cheaters trying to hide something; mainly, trying to hide that they're willing to cheat and lie on paperwork to make their job easier.
Tech support workers often fancy themselves as knowledgeable, but I say ask the IT staff supporting them!
And they're idiots too, just ask the infrastructure development team.
And I have inside word from a product engineer that the infrastructure team doesn't even know what the product is, or why they company they work at exists.
And even the marketing team knows that the product engineers never build the product that was actually promised and sold.
We had some moron who claimed that polygraphs don't detect lies, but luckily there was an experienced operator to explain, "no, it doesn't detect general lies, but sometimes it detects people trying to cheat on the test, which is a category of lie." So they don't work in the way they were originally intended, or in the way the public believes, but they do indeed detect a certain type of dishonesty. It works better than a photocopier, because it is a real machine that does real stuff, so even an educated schemer can fall into the trap of trying to "trick" it.
Polygraph is a load of shit, as a technology. No question. But that fact gives me no sympathy at all for people who lie to try to get around it. Obviously, the polygraph operators don't deserve very much "benefit of the doubt," but if there is solid evidence of cheating, then it doesn't matter if the test can't detect any other type of lie. Cheating is cheating, and if they want credit for not playing the lame game, they don't have to agree to it in the first place. There are lots of legal jobs, recognized as upstanding by the community, which I would never accept because they violate my principles. If you agree to the test, take it straight; if you change your mind, change your job. The high road is always the easier path in the end, because it is self-consistent.
The temperature of the McDonald's coffee was already below industry recommended levels.
The temperature of the McDonald's coffee was from 82 to 88 C at the max according to plaintiffs lawyers, so by the time served less.
Horseshit.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/c...
Do you just make up the lies, or do you recycle them from AM radio? Nobody else served it that hot. Nobody else had to change the temperature they were serving coffee at. Have you ever owned a restaurant? Do you know anybody who works in a restaurant? The only way to think that temperature is normal is to be in complete ignorance of serving temperatures or burn safety, and also to refuse to read the facts about the case.
They all do it, it just isn't advertised how because few people want that.
Just install the ad-blocker, and then manage your own list subscription. Depending on the blocker, you might need an empty list file. Then nothing is blocked, because there are no blocking rules to start with. You'll still have all the normal tools like "select element to hide," etc.
It is kinda funny, but when I first installed an ad-blocker back in the 90s my main job was writing a website that generated banner ads. I was constantly white-listing and de-listing clients. What really disappointed me with the whole thing is that almost none of the people using my service cared what their ad looked like, if it had nice aesthetics, if people would enjoy seeing it. They just wanted to figure out how to make shit flash, or look like it was moving. A tasteful way of implementing a requested feature was never appreciated; they were always mad that it wasn't less tasteful. Non-profits, amusingly, weren't interested in even using it because they weren't trying to save money; they'd just pay a contract artist a couple hundred dollars to hand-design a banner image.
I don't mind threats of pay-walls. If they don't want the public to have the material, then I assume it is not a good basis for discourse. It is useless, because even if I subscribed I can't discuss it with other humans, because I can't link to it for them to read it. Sites that have this attitude are not going to be good resources to rely on IMO. When they self-select out of my decision-making process by erecting barriers to keep me out, that is less time I have to waste to evaluate their offering of information.
Information used to be scarce. It was normal that it was paid for. Information is no longer scarce. If you don't get value just from me using your information, then you're probably pricing yourself out of the conversation by not understanding that information scarcity has changed in a way that will not go away unless society as we know it no longer exists.
Just make decent, maybe targeted ads, which are unintrusive and dont slow down my computer too much, and we can discuss that i change my behaviour.
See this advertisers? You don't need to fear the small minority of us who are allergic to your bullshit. You can ignore us, because all you have to is be minimally non-offensive and there is a large majority who will line up and bleet happily. No, you never had to resort to being obnoxious and toxic. You'd have been better off in the long run on the high road.
See where the problem is?
Yeah, you want to make money off content, and don't have any content that either has value, or that you care about transmitting to the world. If you weren't making a buck, your website wouldn't have anything to say, and so it probably doesn't have anything to say.
Like slashdot. The website sucks. The editors aren't even very good. The reason to come here isn't to give them money, it is to interact with other users; who aren't getting paid for providing the content!
Get a real job. I run commercial websites, BTW. Just for perspective. ;)
The person who wants "something for free" is the jerk making money for merely manipulating people into choosing a product. It isn't like you're even advocating advertising that provides useful product information; just a revenue stream, by any means, just to fund fluff that shouldn't exist and can't survive by itself.
The solution isn't to "steal articles," (which is silly, because users of websites don't want to read the same thing again that they already read; except when they do and went back) the solution is obviously to write articles about things you care about, including as a small part of whatever useful thing it is you do. Note that lots of companies that make products and provide actual services have websites, and the only advertising on their sites are unpaid ads for their own products and services; something which isn't even blocked by ad-blockers! Many have blogs and knowledgebases with "articles." Also, many non-profit, community, and volunteer efforts have websites. With content. And aren't ad-supported at all. The content is often higher than commercial blogs, too; and the authors aren't even getting paid.
They tried to do that to two of my teachers in middle school. Failed both times. The first teacher just kept acting totally normal, and presumably enjoyed the trip, and "nothing happened." The second teacher calmly walked to the nurse's office, said what he believed was happening, and got a week of extra paid leave.
It sounds like a good prank, and the joke-version that people retell sounds believable, but the copycats have a pretty low success rate.
Nope, they'd be entirely in a State-level chain-of-command. It is kinda like the EU; even where the local authorities are required to followed guidelines from "above," they're often not actually in any sort of broader chain-of-command outside their country.
All these sorts of local police, school district officials, mayors, etc., are under the State chain-of-command with their Governor at the top. Even where there are federal guidelines, they attach the guidelines to receiving federal money, and if they need to enforce it they have to go through the courts because there is no chain-of-command that bridges State and Federal officials.
The most criticism they would get from Texas officials would be something like, "gosh guys, this is making us all look bad here."
The most the President could do would be to "invite" them to the White House. They'd just say "no" and make him look powerless and meddling. He's much better off just criticizing them via twitter, as he is. It is a "teachable moment" and the lesson is that "his teachers failed him."
Dear child, I find your Faith in the ability of small Texas communities to change and become inclusive even to Muslims as a breath of fresh air in these cynical times. Yes, I believe you, they can change like night to day, yes, they can grow from the worst to the best, if only their victims hold their heads high and continue suffering the abuse in order to show their abusers how wrong it is.
That has always worked in the South before. Just give it some time.
Terrible what we did to the Indians
India was the Brits, man. Didn't you read Gunga Din?
It's in fucking Texas. I think we can all agree that no one wants to throw good money after bad trying to teach teachers there.
Like the President said, it is a teachable moment; and the lesson is that Ahmed's teachers failed him.
The only thing that makes it a bomb is explosives. From the picture nothing even remotely looked like it could be explosive.
And the corollary is, of course, that the only thing that makes it a bomb trigger is being connected to a bomb.
So the special snowflakes claiming it is a "potential bomb trigger" are making the mistake of thinking that it is potentially connected to a bomb. But that was checked, and it is known if it was connected to a bomb or not. So there is no potential for it to have been connected thusly.
I'm not sure yet, but my theory is they don't understand the word "is," or the temporal concept that it represents.
This kid built, knowingly or not, an actual triggering device out of an alarm clock.
No he didn't.
He built a clock. A clock is not the same as a bomb trigger. If you keep on insisting it is, then literally every watch and phone the kids are wearing/carrying is a potential bomb trigger.
*gasp!* The phone the cop is carrying is also a potential bomb trigger! So is his radio! So is his tazer! So is the drop-gun in his sock! He has more in his car, too. You know who else has potential bomb triggers in their pockets? Every teacher in the school. You know who else does? The kid with lunch money in his pocket. You know why? Radio Shack.
Sorry to poke holes in your knee-jerk Obama hating, but President Obama said very early in this whole thing that it is a teachable moment and that Ahmed's teachers failed him.
Don't let reality interfere with your hating-points, Jr.
No, kids should learn if they did something wrong they should know when to detect an illegal interrogation, and then tell them right away where all the other evidence is so that when the fruits of that interrogation get thrown out, all the evidence will too.
Oh, wait, maybe that was a different moral lesson.
I grew up on both sides of the tracks.
I strongly advise looking for the lawyer before resorting to defecating on the floor.
While there are numerous troubling details in this story, Texas is a shithole. It was a digital clock. I have no trouble believing that Officer Billy-Bob and Mayor Christian Crusader have trouble understanding the "broader... purpose" of a digital clock. If it was a world clock with 3 time zones and 24 hour time, he'd still be in the interrogation room.
"Does this mean you can blow up a bomb in three different places at once? In different parts of the world? Holy Smokes Y'all!"
Maybe if you phrased the situation more like, "you ever wonder how you can know if the Dunkin Donuts is open, without even driving down there to check?"
Maybe somebody could bribe the County Medical Examiner to explain clocks to them.
He'll be back in jail next week when they find his metric laser caliper.
There are actual pictures of the clock floating around the interwebs. You might consider acquiring access to the information superhighway so that you can view these pictures.
There was no "disassembled alarm clock with wires soldered to it." There was a home-made circuit board, connected by ribbon cables to a small battery and digital display. There was no taken-apart alarm clock with drama-department wires attached to road flares, or any such nonsense. There was no Wile. E. Coyote alarm clock contraption. There was no part of the device that looked like explosives.
The teacher who claims to have "thought" it looked like a bomb picked it up and walked off with it, and sent the student to the office... without evacuating anybody. If the teacher has an IQ above 65, then I'm gonna call bull-pucky on having thought it actually looked like a bomb. If the teacher is a former special-ed student living the dream, OK, I can believe the story, and maybe it is just a "training issue."
I thought that it was primarily because McDonald's served a hot beverage in a cup that easily collapses when you grab it, and the lid pops off. Now their cups are very rigid even with no lid.
No, guessing things that are easily looked up is not "thinking. You did not "think" that.
McDonalds stood their ground and refused to lower their coffee temperature to a safe level, or an industry-standard level. They really did have scalding hot coffee that was hotter than what consumers would expect, because it was way hotter than every other chain, hotter than standard commercial coffee equipment heats it to when used according to manufacturer's specifications. They simply did not care about the injuries that numerous people had suffered. Coffee doesn't even taste better when brewed super-hot, it tastes worse. But, their customers don't know or care about coffee quality, and if it was hot or not is all they really report on.
Cups were changed later, for whatever other reasons. Nobody was asking that they change their cups, or do something different than everybody else. They were asked to serve coffee that it is in the temperature range that food and drink are customarily served in the United States, and that is regarded as safe for humans.
When my dad was a hippie in the sixties and lived briefly in Milwaukee they had the same "red line" for "long-hairs" as for blacks. He literally walked half a block into the wrong neighborhood, and was stopped by the police and told which side of town he was allowed in.
The difference is, as a long-hair he was driven back to "his side of town." If he was black, he'd have probably spent a night in jail to "explain the situation." That was before they realized they could just shoot blacks, of course.
Back then, I'm also not sure being "brown" would have even been different than "black."
So, good plan, poor rural kids in India just need to save their wages for a few years, and buy a calculator. Programmers of the future!
Yeah, if you're printing digital art that is a reasonable option that can produce great results.
When it comes to fine art printing services like in the story, that is almost none of the business though. When I see plotter prints in galleries, the artist almost always has their own plotter and is doing experimental mixed-media. I did see some great plotter work based on running edge filters on photos, and mixing that with original bitmapped sections. I don't think the artist sold any, though.
Japan was actively trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped. The only reason it was done was to scare Russia.
There is lots of room for differing opinions, but that one right there is not an opinion, just a blatant lie.
Gonna call Horse-pucky. Find a history book, please. Read it if you can.
Yeah, a lot of people don't understand even the basics of the situation.
The Japanese public had been fed, and believed, propaganda claiming that the United States doesn't take POWs except as slaves. They were taught that all the civilians would be tortured and killed, except those who became sex slaves. Children and old ladies had been doing military drills learning to wield bayonets to fight to the death when the Americans entered the bomb shelters. Every analysis I've seen agrees that the Japanese public believed this propaganda, and indeed many civilians had to be killed in the places captured conventionally, because they kept fighting even after their were no more soldiers protecting them. If somebody is taking shots at the door to a bunker you're trying to enter, the standard military solution is to toss in a grenade or two. You can't talk them out when they believe you're a Devil come to torture them to death.
The US casualties would have been higher too, obviously. But the argument that invading by land would have killed less civilians... that is not an argument usually made by historians. And the non-nuclear technique that reduces US military casualties (a desired outcome, especially in a defensive war like WWII) is fire-bombing. Japan would have been 100 Dresden's.