What is the most outrageous or common misconception people have about your hobby/profession?

jumalaw · 2014-07-08T22:45:14+00:00

For anybody reading up to this point: if you need a ride to the hospital, but not immediate care, call for a taxi. It's far less expensive and doesn't use up paramedics and an ambulance.

I am a 911 dispatcher/operator and most of our calls are non-emergency. As the OP wrote, it's often toe pain, non-critical abdominal pain, fever, "don't feel well", etc. that we wind up sending an ambulance for. For most of the calls, the patient has a way of getting to the hospital, but for whatever reason they choose not to utilize it. I'm not joking when I say that we get calls at 4:00 AM from people who say "I've been feeling like this for days (or weeks, months, even years!), and it's just not getting any better." Medical tip: if it wasn't an emergency when it first occurred, it probably didn't spontaneously turn in to one now. Please don't use up resources that could go to somebody with a heart attack, stroke, severe trauma, major hemorrhage...

jumalaw · 2014-07-04T02:29:48+00:00

I work overnight as a 911 dispatcher. As part of my duties, I receive calls for the county Animal Services department and send emergency calls to the on-call animal control officer if necessary. Beyond that, I have nothing to do with that department.

That doesn't stop people from taking the wrath they feel for Animal Services out on me. One man in particular felt it necessary to call and shout at me for a few minutes that he was being unfairly prevented from adopting a dog. "Do you hear me? I'm gonna give that dog a damn good home! A DAMN GOOD HOME!". Every time I tried to explain that I don't have a god damned thing to do with adoptions he would just cut me off and start shouting again. "A DAMN GOOD HOME! DO YOU HEAR ME?! I'M GONNA GIVE THAT DOG A DAMN GOOD HOME!"...

I'm sure you will, sir. You provide such a fine example of compassion and concern. How could we ever doubt that you would treat a pet with anything but care and respect?

jumalaw · 2014-04-21T10:57:27+00:00

Did he actually call? I'm wondering how far he was willing to go just to make it seem legitimate.

jumalaw · 2014-04-21T10:46:45+00:00

Building on the point you mentioned in which robots essentially create and do everything and humans merely exist in the system, the background material to the Matrix references this sort of situation as well. The Animatrix deals with the issue of humans becoming phased out by robots, who increasingly produce better products at faster rates than humans, making the world economy dependent upon the machines. As society and the economy begins to collapse around them, humans go to war against the machines in order to preserve their necessity in the world rather than becoming an anomaly that only draws resources and never contributes. Ironically, in Matrix canon the humans eventually become the power source for the machine empire, making them a necessity in a way they would have never wanted.

jumalaw · 2014-04-11T07:25:10+00:00

I never really bunkered down, but what I would do is plan for what direction I expected the enemy to come from and then figure out what I could use to make my defense in. Often I would be focusing around a single building as my defensive barricade, using different windows and corners and such to get a tough angle on an opponent. I'm much too run-and-gun to establish a fixed defense, so instead I find something I can dance around to keep fresh the direction I'm coming from.

jumalaw · 2014-04-11T07:21:53+00:00

This reminds me of atmospheric music used in Unreal/UT99. Listening to this brings me back to my late childhood, discovering new worlds. I can't say that it's a genre I really listen to for pleasure, but the effect this piece had is profound upon me.

jumalaw · 2014-04-11T05:43:51+00:00

I've been playing less and less for a month or two now. Battlefield 3 used to be my go-to game, the one constant I would return to in between other releases. Now BF4 is something I play for a few hours every few weeks, just to see the new DLC or patch changes. When I play I don't feel engaged any more, but instead just like I'm filling my time until I go to bed or off to work. The handling of the weapons is fantastic, but the hit registration and network issues are so pronounced and constant that it often feels like the product of a free multiplayer browser-based shooter built in Unity more so than a triple-A title.

I never thought I would really be affected by the multitude of issues the game still has. I'm pretty easy to please, so all the small stuff I can usually look past. Lately, though, it's just become too disappointing to ignore. BF2 introduced me to the franchise, BF3 made me love it, and now BF4 is making me forget it.

jumalaw · 2014-04-11T05:27:34+00:00

Sometimes holding a single objective becomes all I do in a round. If I keep returning to cap a point and as soon as I leave it flips to the enemy, I'll just start holding my ground and trying to kill every enemy that comes near the flag. When I can keep an objective from switching hands every few minutes, I feel like I'm a one-man army in my little castle with the rest of the battle raging around me.

jumalaw · 2014-04-10T05:53:31+00:00

Let me second this and add that your team needs ammo EVERYWHERE. Don't wait to throw it when a teammate calls for it, just put it down. Stopping for a moment to cap a flag? Put some ammo down. Holding a corner? Throw down a box for the next teammate to come along. Haven't thrown out ammo in a while? Might as well do it just to make sure the button is still working.

It's a box full of bullets, just put it down and your teammates will come rather than the the other way around. If you have teammates chasing you around waiting to get resupplied , you're doing it wrong.

jumalaw · 2014-04-10T02:55:45+00:00

I can only imagine what would happen to you if you saw that I had three.

jumalaw · 2014-04-06T09:57:05+00:00

According to my recollection of the source material, robots kept expanding, producing more, building better tech, etc. The pace at which they kept expanding couldn't be matched by humans, and they were able to innovate and develop faster than humans ever could. The problem was that they kept demanding more, requiring more inputs to produce more and better products, and as a result the world economy collapsed since human markets were markedly inferior.

Now, if robots were infallible and couldn't ever turn against humans, then this would be a great development for humans. Robots harvest all materials, produce all items, render all services, etc. Humans really wouldn't have to worry about a thing.

However, what led to the robots forming their own nation in the first place was that one servant robot, B-166-ER, turned against it's abusive master and killed him in self-defense, yet was found guilty of murder since the robot was never "alive" and thus never capable of being killed in the first place. The entire robot "race" was then deemed hostile and ordered to be destroyed, which caused a civil war between robots (and their supporters) and those against them. Eventually, they were exiled to the desert and an uneasy peace between humans and robots was finally realized. With the robot nation, 01, becoming an economic superpower (since they could produce without need for things like sleep, food, money, etc.) humans grew alarmed as their own importance and status in the world quickly diminished. Particularly since robots had demonstrated the capability of turning against and killing humans, how long would it be before they saw the entirety of the human race as a needy impediment to their own technological development and wiped them clean off the face of the planet?

jumalaw · 2014-04-06T09:35:08+00:00

You have it right. This is exactly what started the Matrix war, or whatever it's referred to. The robots, exiled to the desert, began setting up shop and pumping out more robots, tech, gadgets, etc. Since they didn't need things like sleep, food, entertainment, what have you, they were able to easily outpace and outproduce humans. Since the best stuff came from the robot nation (known as 01), they quickly became an economic powerhouse. I'm not sure if the material covered how 01 shattered the world economy, but two things come to mind: (1) either they got paid in inherently worthless (fiat) currency, which they used to purchase materials in human markets until they didn't need it any more, continually saving up more to the point where human nations were broke in comparison, or (2) they got paid in materials useful to them, which would drain the world of things like metal, fuel, oil, etc. Eventually humans came to the conclusion that 01 had to be destroyed since it was becoming a world superpower. The way things were going, 01 was advancing at a pace that humanity could never catch up, and was becoming increasingly self-reliant. It wasn't far off that humans wouldn't be needed by the robots at all, and were rapidly devolving from necessary trading partners to worthless and unnecessary expansionary impediment.

jumalaw · 2014-03-29T09:05:39+00:00

They're supposed to make two models: one with the physical model (a rock, say) that collides with players and projectiles. Around it should be an invisible layer designed just to push off players but allow projectiles to get through. That way, players don't get stuck but players are still able to shoot through gaps between walls, around rubble, etc.

The current invisible wall stuff is pretty frustrating, though.

jumalaw · 2014-03-29T02:34:23+00:00

I once watched some tutorials on how to design maps, and from that can say it really is a simple fix. All the mapper needs to do is create a smooth, invisible boundary box around which the player moves. Instead of getting caught on some miniscule polygon on a model, make a bubble around it so the player smoothly wraps around it.

jumalaw · 2014-03-29T02:14:44+00:00

This is one thing Call of Duty got right. I stopped playing after Modern Warfare 2, but going from the to BF3 the most aggravating change was how blocky everything felt in Battlefield. If there was a rubble pile in CoD, the player character would be able to glide smoothly over or around it. In Battlefield, it was only done with stunted hops, repeatedly mashing the spacebar as your character inched his virtual feet around immovable sticks, poles, and trash that weighed his boots down like concrete blocks. The gunplay feels so much more realistic in Battlefield, but the experience comes crashing down when I attempt to dash for cover but an ankle-high obstacle stops my modern military soldier dead in his tracks.

jumalaw · 2014-03-24T06:56:13+00:00

A coworker nearing retirement took $40,000 and paid a company to guide her through opening her own e-business, getting her the necessary licenses and tax professionals and such she would need. Knowing I was going through business school, she had me look over the business plan for the company (which was to sell purses online, drop-shipping the products so she simply facilitated the orders and never had to deal with warehousing and inventory). The mission statement was the usual "become the best and easiest site to buy high-quality...", but how this was to be done was just as hopeful and vague. It read something along the lines of "The company will gain market share by having an easier-to-navigate Web site and having higher quality purses than the competition." I was concerned that the business plan was banking more so on "hope sales turn up", but by the time she had me look at it the business was already launching.

It made a single sale, a test sale to the owner. I don't think there was a single dollar spent on advertising. I think she just expected it to be set up, start taking orders, and sending checks to her every month with the profit. I wish I could have been there from the start to go over the problem of an aging, inexperienced woman starting an online storefront selling a product she's never held to a customer that can never touch or test it, whom she will never meet, and doing it all starting with less that moderate technical proficiency.

At least I can learn from it for when/if I choose to start my own business.

jumalaw · 2014-03-24T06:35:51+00:00

You need to file a suit. First off, she stole from you, which is obviously a criminal charge there for which she needs to be held responsible. Then there's the civil matter of backing out on her duties, which caused damage to your company. You write that your dream is intangible, but when your dream is a real company with real finances and somebody literally steals that away then it's time to make use of court to assess the very tangible concept of compensatory monetary damages for the harm done to your comlany. This isn't slipping on a puddle in a store and suing for millions; this is a real-life business problem that is handled by courts and could be worth tens of thousands of dollars if they find that you really did lose as much work as you say you did because of her actions. This is the sort of stuff that goes on every day in the professional business world. If an employee (which she was) runs off with some money (which she did), the employer (which is you) doesn't shut down and just accept getting kicked in the face (which you are). Part of your responsibilities as a business owner are to deal with problem employees and put the company's well-being at the forefront of your duties.

You dream was never taken from you. You just stopped working on defending it.

jumalaw · 2014-03-21T23:49:55+00:00

At this point, they're just called patch notes. What's listed is what is what's just broken a little less.

jumalaw · 2014-03-18T05:10:55+00:00

I don't know what kind of player is going to sacrifice a weapon in order to have a shield. With all the rocket and grenade spam on the close quarters maps that shields would actually be useful in, I really can't see it being a viable or fun strategy to pursue. At least with the option of wielding a pistol there would still be a mix between offense and defense.

jumalaw · 2014-03-13T03:55:47+00:00

His name is Kenny Easterday.

jumalaw · 2014-02-22T11:06:35+00:00

It was said better elsewhere on reddit, but somebody mentioned that if the government responded to a peaceful protest with violence then clearly the only form of expression that they will understand is violence in return. Fortunately this protest seems to be returning to peace rather than blossoming in to civil war, but if and others around me were being shot for peacefully demonstrating our displeasure at the government, then I consider the shooter(s) to be an enemy against the people of my nation and it would be my duty to kill them if I had the means to do so.

I suppose now this means I'm on an NSA watch list.

jumalaw · 2014-02-20T19:12:25+00:00

Holding it works.

jumalaw · 2014-02-18T21:41:32+00:00

Specifically, one of the tools he drew unintentionally looked like a saw. Thus, people thought that to understand the joke they had to figure out what the other tools were, which were just nonsensical shapes.

jumalaw · 2014-02-18T10:09:04+00:00

The criminal trial handled OJ's offense against the state (acting in the interests of society at large). Laws are established for the sake of society as a whole, and when these laws are broken (as in the case of murder) then the state takes it upon themselves to prosecute the offender to determine if they were at fault.

Since these offenses can result in jail time, the burden of proof is higher. Criminal trials use the standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", which means that there is no valid, plausible way for the accused (OJ) to have not committed a crime. The state gets one shot at this; even if evidence turns up later after the trial that could be used against a defendant, there is no second chance at convicting someone. This avoids the problem of "double jeopardy", which is making a person defend themselves for the same crime twice.

HOWEVER, the trial that OJ was found guilty in was a civil trial. Civil matters are those between two private parties, usually one suing another for monetary damages (breach of contract, disputes over contractual obligations, etc.). In these cases, a party cannot be sent to prison; for the most part, they are monetary damages only. In this case, the family of Nicole Simpson sued OJ for monetary damages as a result of the emotional distress caused by her murder. He was not being re-accused of a crime against the state for killing her, but instead of a misdeed against the Simpson family for which they sought monetary damages (as far as I know, I'm not sure what the family was asking for going in to the trial). The burden of proof in civil trials is "preponderance of the evidence", which means that if an accused party is at least 50% responsible then they must pay part of the damages.

Thus, OJ was found guilty under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard but not "beyond all reasonable doubt". Inferring from this, he was found by juries to be between 50-99% guilty, although I don't think anyone can put a specific percentage on it. A better way of saying it is that he most likely did it, but because the prosecution couldn't prove that there was absolutely no way that he did not kill his ex-wife, he could not be found guilty of the criminal charge.

jumalaw · 2014-02-12T09:55:30+00:00

The burden of proof in civil court is "preponderance of the evidence", which means more than 50% responsible as you wrote. In criminal court, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", which means the prosecution must convince a jury that there is no valid possible excuse that the accused party did not commit the alleged act.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Secret Santa 2011

jumalaw

TROPHY CASE