What's in this section?
In this section, there are the following articles:
- Caleb's Column that Has No Name because Caleb was Too Lazy To Make One Up
- Featured YWP story
- More stuff that is to be announced
Caleb's Column that Has No Name because Caleb was Too Lazy To Make One Up
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: For our many non-techy readers, a dialog box is also known as a popup box, a message box, or a popup window.
Hello. I’m Caleb, and I’d like to talk to you about ‘frontrowing’. This abhorrent practice involves sneaking up behind someone using a school computer and opening the application Front Row through a keyboard command.
Because students don’t need Front Row for school, it’s not one of the applications students are permitted to use. Most applications that aren’t permitted will alert the user once and go away. Front Row does not. It will continually send alerts through dialog boxes about every ten seconds. These need to be dealt with by either clicking ‘okay’ or hitting return. This sounds far less annoying than it is, since frontrowing is most often done when writing is the main focus. If one isn’t a great typist (i.e. have to look at hands occasionally) this can be very difficult, because anything typed while the dialog box is open will have no effect.
There is no way to stop Front Row from trying to run without logging out, because Front Row can't be force quit. This is because Front Row isn't open (the computer's only telling you that it can't be opened.) One can’t force quit an application that isn’t open, can they?
I urge readers to step back and consider if they have ever frontrowed someone. If they have, apologize and resolve to neither frontrow anyone yourself or tolerate the practice in others.
Hello. I’m Caleb, and I’d like to talk to you about ‘frontrowing’. This abhorrent practice involves sneaking up behind someone using a school computer and opening the application Front Row through a keyboard command.
Because students don’t need Front Row for school, it’s not one of the applications students are permitted to use. Most applications that aren’t permitted will alert the user once and go away. Front Row does not. It will continually send alerts through dialog boxes about every ten seconds. These need to be dealt with by either clicking ‘okay’ or hitting return. This sounds far less annoying than it is, since frontrowing is most often done when writing is the main focus. If one isn’t a great typist (i.e. have to look at hands occasionally) this can be very difficult, because anything typed while the dialog box is open will have no effect.
There is no way to stop Front Row from trying to run without logging out, because Front Row can't be force quit. This is because Front Row isn't open (the computer's only telling you that it can't be opened.) One can’t force quit an application that isn’t open, can they?
I urge readers to step back and consider if they have ever frontrowed someone. If they have, apologize and resolve to neither frontrow anyone yourself or tolerate the practice in others.
Featured YWP story
by Isacc Jacobs - with 3 positive comments {we select the best pieces with the highest # of positive comments.}
I'm going to kick off this seven minute write with a quote from one of our rebublican presidential canidates, Herman Cain.
"Don't blame wall street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself."
I both totally agree and totally disagree with this statement. It makes sense, doesn't it? You should be the one out there looking for a job! It's not the governent's fault you don't have one! On a personal note, I know I hate it when people blame things on me instead of taking initiative for things that they've done. But on the other hand, there's a very strong argument against this statement. There are people out there that will inherit billion dollar companies from the predecessors and never have to work at all while still being incredibly rich. There are also people who work two jobs as hard as the possibly can while still failing to feed themselves and their family. And having a big job takes a lot more the just plain effort. You need to have the right resources to have grown up in a community that educated you well, and you need to have parents and extended family to help pay your way through college, especially if you plan on going to a more expensive one. And truth be told, there are probably people that have been reduced to living on the streets that would probably be geniuses if they were given the opportunity to have a proper education. So I guess that I disagree with that statement more than I agree with it. While in an idealistic world that saying would pertian, this country is unfortunately not one of equal opportunity.
My second point against this is talking on a much bigger scale. Going back to the perfect world example, if it were a perfect world I think the idea of a country without government would be very intresting. It would be every man for himself, doing what he or she wants to do to better help the community. The issue with this plan in the modern world is that it would be easily corruptable for those that are out there for themselves, not for the better good of the community. So when our founding fathers decided on a government, they based it on the principles that it should be a government for the people, by the people that is essentially based on the idea of helping the citizens out. Well, duh. So if the whole point that our government exists in the first place is that it is there to help people, how can it not take partial responsibility for the fact that there are a lot of people out there without work? If our politicians aren't going to fight for the good of the people, and by people I mean every single one, than what are they going to fight for? More money for rich people?
I'll give you some time to think it over while I try to wash all this blue dye off my body.
(Get it? Leave a comment if you don't and I'll tell you what it means!)
I'm going to kick off this seven minute write with a quote from one of our rebublican presidential canidates, Herman Cain.
"Don't blame wall street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself."
I both totally agree and totally disagree with this statement. It makes sense, doesn't it? You should be the one out there looking for a job! It's not the governent's fault you don't have one! On a personal note, I know I hate it when people blame things on me instead of taking initiative for things that they've done. But on the other hand, there's a very strong argument against this statement. There are people out there that will inherit billion dollar companies from the predecessors and never have to work at all while still being incredibly rich. There are also people who work two jobs as hard as the possibly can while still failing to feed themselves and their family. And having a big job takes a lot more the just plain effort. You need to have the right resources to have grown up in a community that educated you well, and you need to have parents and extended family to help pay your way through college, especially if you plan on going to a more expensive one. And truth be told, there are probably people that have been reduced to living on the streets that would probably be geniuses if they were given the opportunity to have a proper education. So I guess that I disagree with that statement more than I agree with it. While in an idealistic world that saying would pertian, this country is unfortunately not one of equal opportunity.
My second point against this is talking on a much bigger scale. Going back to the perfect world example, if it were a perfect world I think the idea of a country without government would be very intresting. It would be every man for himself, doing what he or she wants to do to better help the community. The issue with this plan in the modern world is that it would be easily corruptable for those that are out there for themselves, not for the better good of the community. So when our founding fathers decided on a government, they based it on the principles that it should be a government for the people, by the people that is essentially based on the idea of helping the citizens out. Well, duh. So if the whole point that our government exists in the first place is that it is there to help people, how can it not take partial responsibility for the fact that there are a lot of people out there without work? If our politicians aren't going to fight for the good of the people, and by people I mean every single one, than what are they going to fight for? More money for rich people?
I'll give you some time to think it over while I try to wash all this blue dye off my body.
(Get it? Leave a comment if you don't and I'll tell you what it means!)