Plaid Pantry execs oughta take the grave yard shift themselves. Unarmed.

They would be unarmed as per policy but their personal security guards would carry machine-guns on the grave yard shift.

 

ericgibbs said: ↑
Mod: Please refrain from posting Political content.

T&C's apply:
- No Spamming or Advertising
- No Abusing or Insulting Members
- No Adult, Vulgar, Offensive, or other Contentious Content
- No Politics
- No HHO, overunity, or Meyer
It's a great policy I agree with but the entire topic is political not just my apparently deleted response.

You might want to go back and read the "things I've learned on AAC thread"

"NEVER" mess with Mr.Chips, ericgibbs or Wendy

 

https://www.kptv.com/news/ex-clerk-...cle_4134e62a-8185-11e9-a84c-7f78b4ed5535.html

It seems the criminal didn't get the 'no weapons' memo.

"No weapons allowed" = "Low-threat, target-rich environment"

"Plaid Pantry adheres to proven industry best-practices, including the policy of no weapons in the store. The Company makes significant investments in security equipment and training in robbery deterrence and violence prevention. All employees are trained in these procedures and receive ongoing refresher training. In the event a robbery does occur, the focus shifts entirely to non-resistance, cooperation, and violence avoidance for the safety of our employees and customers."

Plenty of examples where employees cooperated non-violently right up to the point of being led into the walk-in refrigerator and gunned down.

I liked the policy that was sent out at the Air Force Academy (coincidentally the day after the Virginia Tech mass shooting since it had been in the pipeline well before then) that after the usual guidance of shelter in place and cooperate, added something like, "If an opportunity presents itself, or can be created, you are directed to engage, disarm, and disable the attacker. Use of deadly force is authorized."

 

This is going to revolutionize software engineering, if it ever catches on.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529180242.htm

"The concept of multi-value logic transistors is not new, and there have been many attempts to make such devices," Cho said. "We have done it."

 

This is going to revolutionize software engineering, if it ever catches on.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529180242.htm

The main problem at the hardware level I see is creating low energy logic states other than 0 or 1 that are fast switching with amorphous solid state physics where even binary states are much slower in amorphous structures. We have a very long history of doping and straining crystalline silicon for example that results in very high speed efficient junctions because the lattice is regular and predictable in mobility modifications that affect switching speeds and losses. Amorphous junctions by their very disorderliness makes it difficult to calculate their properties in advance. Look at the difference between amorphous Thin film cells and crystalline solar cells as a example of the efficiency and long term stability differences between the two technologies.

It might work but people have been trying to make good fast amorphous transistors for other than display use for decades.

 

It might work but people have been trying to make good fast amorphous transistors for other than display use for decades.

It will work, I'm sure... it's only a matter of time. Ever read the history behind the development of the white LED? ... that took decades too.

 

It will work, I'm sure... it's only a matter of time. Ever read the history behind the development of the white LED? ... that took decades too.

The question is. Will it be better? Quantum computers are not the answer for general computing problems, I don't expect multi-level logic to be one either.

 

Furthermore, even when it works and is commercialized, I don't see it resulting in anything revolutionary, but rather just evolutionary. Just as with all of the breakthroughs that have occurred in processor design since the first 4004 hit the market, end users will see improved and more capable performance and not some radically new and different devices the likes of which they never dreamed of.

 

Furthermore, even when it works and is commercialized, I don't see it resulting in anything revolutionary, but rather just evolutionary. Just as with all of the breakthroughs that have occurred in processor design since the first 4004 hit the market, end users will see improved and more capable performance and not some radically new and different devices the likes of which they never dreamed of.

Your comment begs the question, what do you see as revolutionary? ... because, for instance, I see white LED tech that way... in only a decade it did away with incandescent light bulbs, which entirely dominated the lighting industry for more than a century.

You seriously don't think multi-state logic technology wouldn't qualify as a computational revolution?

 

I see it as unlikely to be a computational revolution as we have been able to build ternary and quaternary logic structures using standard CMOS fabrication technology for decades. If there was some unique capability it enabled I think we would be using versions of it already.

 

Your comment begs the question, what do you see as revolutionary? ... because, for instance, I see white LED tech that way... in only a decade it did away with incandescent light bulbs, which entirely dominated the lighting industry for more than a century.

You seriously don't think multi-state logic technology wouldn't qualify as a computational revolution?

I agree that it's a matter of opinion and people will view it differently. I for one do not see white LEDs as being revolutionary, but evolutionary. What kinds of things can be done now that couldn't be done before? Doing the same things cheaper or more energy efficiently doesn't count, in my book. Now, if I were to restrict myself to ONLY considering ecological implications, THEN I might draw a different conclusion (but even there I think the jury is still out to some degree).

What things will multi-state logic technology (which has been around, and useless from a practical standpoint, for quite some time) make possible that are not possible today? If the answer is computers that are twice or four times and fast or half or one-fourth the cost, I would consider that evolutionary. If the answer is computers that are a hundred times as fast or one percent of the cost, then I could be talked into calling that revolutionary because it puts a whole slew of things on the "doable" list that are presently not there.

 

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/risky-playgrounds-are-making-a-comeback?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The information age has ushered in an era of fear about children’s well-being, shifting norms heavily towards constant oversight and nearly impossible standards of safety. One casualty of that trend has been the playground, which has become mind-numbingly standard-issue—with the same type of plastic swing sets and slides—designed to minimize harm, rather than maximize enjoyment.

Over the last few years, however, pushback against the overly sanitized playground has grown considerably, with new research supporting the importance of play—especially unstructured play—for early childhood development. Critics also argue that concerns about actual harm are overstated. These findings have raised questions about playground design. Is the current playground model fostering creativity, independence, and problem-solving? What does risk really mean—and when is it OK?

 

And I can just see the lawsuits that are going to come out of that. "Are you telling the court that you DESIGNED the playground on which my client's precious child was injured to be risky? Your honor, we rest our case."

 

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/risky-playgrounds-are-making-a-comeback?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The information age has ushered in an era of fear about children’s well-being, shifting norms heavily towards constant oversight and nearly impossible standards of safety.

I don't think this is a fair claim. The age of unreasoning risk adverseness started well before that. At best the information age merely got behind the trend and pushed hard.

 

I don't think this is a fair claim. The age of unreasoning risk adverseness started well before that. At best the information age merely got behind the trend and pushed hard.

It progressed from "hoovering" parents to bulldozing parents clearing the way of any possible danger for kids rather quickly.

 

"hoovering" parents...

I had a hoovering grandma. She vacuumed all the time.

But not on the playground.

 

It progressed from "hoovering" parents to bulldozing parents clearing the way of any possible danger for kids rather quickly.

I had never heard of the term "helicopter parent" before I started teaching as a visiting prof at my Alma mater and ran into it head on. One of the first examples I saw was the parent of a graduate student coming in and arguing with the guy in the office next do to mine about little Johnnie's grade. After I was introduced to the term, I realized I had encountered such a parent myself previously but had written it off as an aberration (and I think, at the time, it pretty much was).

I was in elementary school the last time my parents went to bat for me with a teacher and even then it happened perhaps three times in five years. By the time I was in high school I couldn't imagine expecting my Dad to step in on my behalf, though I know he would have had the situation really been beyond my ability to deal with. But once I was in college??? Come on! I don't know that I could have gotten him to step in. Support me 100% in my efforts, sure. Without a doubt (unless he felt I was in the wrong). But at that point I was an adult and it was up to me to fight my own battles.

 

My use of “hoovering” was intentional. It's a little different (narcissistic parent or parents) from the "helicopter parent".

 

My use of “hoovering” was intentional. It's a little different (narcissistic parent or parents) from the "helicopter parent".

I'm a little lost... why are you uusingthe word "hoovering" instead of "hovering"? ... or am I falling for one of Joey's wisecracks?

 

I'm a little lost... why are you uusingthe word "hoovering" instead of "hovering"? ... or am I falling for one of Joey's wisecracks?

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/hoover-maneuver-the-dirty-secret-of-emotional-abuse-0219154

The literature on the subject of narcissistic abuse recovery is replete with pseudonyms for various circumstances involving a person with narcissism. One such concept is “hoovering” by the emotionally abusive person. When the cycle of “idealize, devalue, discard” is complete, a person with narcissistic qualities will often return to prior sources of narcissistic supply to see if he or she can tap such individuals for more ego-fueling attention, emotional reaction, sex, money, business advantages, a place to live, or other affirmations of his or her existence. “Hoover maneuver” was coined after the name of a popular vacuum cleaner, alluding to the fact abusers often attempt to suction up narcissistic supply from prior sources (people).

These were the kind of parents I saw when young. They would use the children as extension of their lives, forcing them to excel in activities the children sometimes hated. At least back then, most of the parents didn't try short-cuts, they pushed Jane or Jimmy to actually be better than the other kids.