Wannabelifeguard

This is actually the technique that I was told about that lead me to begin this topic. I was told that security guards do this and it increases their situational awareness. I went out and tried it myself and was blown away by how effective and easy it was. I was curious if there were any more similar techniques. I did not mention it in my original question because I did not want people to assume I knew anything else and not mention anything.

Hi guys, The question is primarily about the Boreal forest - the forests found throughout Europe/Russia/North America. I am trying to make a 3D map of a made up forest and at the moment I have just been randomly putting poplar/birch/fir/pine trees everywhere. But that made me wonder, is that really accurate? Perhaps the pine trees should be clustered in one area and the fir trees in another area? Or maybe pine trees are always surrounded by birch trees? Who knows, any help would be appreciated. Also, do you know if the physical terrain should have a lot of changes in height or is it mostly flat? Would you expect to find swamps in the boreal forest? If so, what trees would be nearby? Would the land slope or would it be rolling like the steppe?

Hadn't responded because I have been away from home recently. I think your question confuses how you want the world to be with how it actually is. It is perfectly normal for lifeguards and security guards to experience boredom on the job. It is just like any job. Now to answer your question, I wanted to be a lifeguard in the past to improve my safety and confidence in the water (that is why my name said "wannabe lifeguard"). I never became a lifeguard and no longer want to be a lifeguard. I have developed my own water confidence separately. I also don't want to be a security guard - but do martial arts and know a lot of security guards that come to training. I also recall talking to a couple of security guards about 8 years ago and I remember them talking about the boredom. However, your response is not relevant to my question. I am asking about techniques that security guards and lifeguards could use to help prevent boredom. I am not asking "Should I be a lifeguard?". This is a psychology forum, not a job advice forum. I would prefer it if you answer my question or just don't bother to respond to my post. Thanks, but I was not asking because I am a bored lifeguard (I am not a lifeguard or security guard, and it is not something I plan to do in the future). I am asking about techniques that lifeguards and security guards could use to help them pay attention while on the job. For example, how would you keep a security guard focused on monitors for eight hours a day? It is not an easy thing to achieve. Even though your response was a little off point, I appreciate you taking my question seriously and contributing a meaningful response. Cheers.

Hi guys, Do psychologists study methods to retain concentration and prevent boredom? Specifically interested in what methods a lifeguard or security officer could use to help pay attention to what is going on around them. Also, what field of psychology would study this? Cheers.

Can you clarify this? Thanks, but i am trying to understand if the maths actually makes logical sense. I.e. does it actually have any value without having all the components (which seem infinite).

Hi guys, I don't have a strong maths background so hoping for some feedback on the way I think about self-defence which can be summed out as follows: I = P(A) + P(T) + P(D) Where: I = probability of not being Injured/killed from attack P(A) = probability of successful attack in a situation where you are paying Attention to what is going on around you. P(T) = probability of successful attack depending on that particular time of day. P(D) = probability of successful attack given you are a competent MMA fighter. So I am thinking of using the formula like the drake equation (predicts probability of aliens based on assumed probabilities). I don't know for sure what the probability of P(A), P(T), and P(D) is, but I would like to think I can use the formula to help understand and explain the relationship of the components of the formula. Some points of confusion 1. If each component was 0.4, then the overall probability would come out to be 1.2 - how can that be? That would suggest you cannot ever be injured or killed in an attack. 2. Can such a formula really be of any use given that there are so many variables? I mean we could also add in P(N) to indicate the probability of attack in the specific area of town you are in. Or P© to indicate probability of attack in a carpark. Can such a formula be used without specifying every single variable? Again, just to emphasis. I am not looking to be able to calculate my exact probability of being successfully attacked. I am more just looking to be able to plug in some numbers based on my subjective views to see conclusion logically follows from those views. So for examples, I might wonder how likely I am to be successfully attacked if P(A) = 0.01 and P(T) = 0.001 and P(D) = 0.1. It would be good to know the conclusion that logically follows.

Hi team, I will be using Law Enforcement as an example in this post, but my question relates to the much broader topic of complexity so feel free to respond with non-law enforcement responses. So in the United States (as an example) the government is insanely complex. For example, there are literally thousands of different law enforcement agencies. You might have the city police doing the main job of the police in a city, but have the local Sheriff running the jails and the state Bureau of Prisons running the prisons. Not too complicated yet. Except if you have someone on the run you might want to call the US Marshals Service, unless it is a case of the person fleeing to avoid prosecution in which case you would want to contact the FBI and ask them to obtain a UFAP (Unlawful flight to Avoid Prosecution) warrant. But if the person on the run is involved with drugs, you might need to let the DEA know, unless it is Tobacco, in which case you should call the ATF, although if they appear to be associated with cross border tobacco smuggling the ICE-HSI might need to get involved. Presumably they will be involved with money laundering but if there is any counterfeiting the Secret Service will need to be notified. Now don't get me started on when the State agencies become involved... So as you can see there are a lot of different agencies involved in law enforcement, and this leads me to wonder how much time, both formal(classroom) and informal (on the job) time is spent learning the roles of all the different organisations. It seems like a lot of the US police officers time would be spent just trying to figure out who to refer a case to. To some extent the diversity in agencies is a product of the US legal and social history, but that is not the full story. Question 1: Has anyone ever tried to measure how much the complexity of a system like this actually costs in terms of the time people spend just to learn about it? Even those few extra seconds a beat cop takes to ask their supervisor who to notify about a particular case. It all adds up in the end. Question 2: Is there any research or reason to believe that countries with large populations can have a single law law enforcement agency that still functions properly? Thought 1: I am sure that no matter how long a law enforcement training course is in the United States, a significant amount of the training is probably devoted to learning about the complexity of the US legal system. I mean FBI training is 20 weeks long and is often presented as the best in the world. But I wouldn't be surprised if a academics investigated the training further they would find that 5 weeks of the training would be completely unnecessary in many other countries. For example, learning about federal question jurisdiction, the Attorney General Guidelines/policies that designate which agency is lead in which investigations and which investigations get priority. All that stuff is unnecessary if you have just one law enforcement agency. If a crime is committed, you are the lead agency be default. EDIT1: Another example would be the US Court system that has different rules and procedures depending on which court you appear in. Again, it seems to be a lot of unnecessary learning to know the rules of State courts, federal courts, county courts, specialist tribunals. It would seem easier if you just needed to know one set of rules for all the courts.

Yea, the article talks about that.

There would be mass added due to the conversion of energy. This is normally ignored in first year chemistry courses but later on you learn that a very small amount of energy does get converted to mass - or at least this is what I recall from a very long time ago. Although it is a small amount, it might be relevant given the size of the earth... even a increase in mass by 0.00001 would be a lot. But I am no expert... just throwing in my 0.00002 cents...

Thanks, I have found a book. It looks like it will be at least three months worth of study. I was just wanting to make sure that at the end of it, I would actually be able to predict weather in the context of camping trips. I live in New Zealand, and there is a lot of difficulty in predicting weather here because of the mountains throughout the country. I like your idea about wind direction. I can even use a compass for that. Southerlies bring in the cold air here. Clouds are difficult to see under the forest canopy, but you often find open spaces, even if only briefly.

Hi team, Definitions Cleaning: removal of direct, grime, and dust. Disinfectant: removal of surface microbes. Article http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2015/02/16/12537302/Zabada_LitReview_UWA_20130521-1.pdf So I just came across a literature review article about cleaning products and it discussed a bunch of research that demonstrates that microfibre cloth and water is better for cleaning than using cleaning products and cloth or even cleaning products and microfibre together. The reason water and microfibre appears to be better than cleaning products and microfibre is because the cleaning products did not do more to remove dirt/grime/dust than the microfibre cloth alone, and it damaged the microfibre, reducing its effectiveness over time. The other issue was that the cleaning products caused indoor air pollution. I was fascinated and looked for further review articles, which seemed to have some contradictory information. So I am left wondering whether I should abandon the use of cleaning products and stick to just using microfibre cloths and water or whether the research I have read was low quality or bias. This is not my area of expertise so I am not in a position to assess the quality of the article. I was wondering if there is some organisation, anywhere in the world, that takes it upon itself to take the research on household hygiene and put it into guidelines for an "Evidence Based" clean home. EDIT 1: to clarify, I am specifically looking for an authoritative source of information. Obviously there are plenty of home help websites out there that have tips on cleaning your home, but I am interesting in cleaning tips based off evidence, rather than experience.

Thanks for your response Mutex. How much time do you think I will need to study meteorology before I get to the point that I can read the weather? So far, I have studied a Meteorology chapter of an Earth Science textbook and have a general idea of how weather works - but so far, it is not really information I can apply. I could explain what probably happened to cause the current weather, but unsure how to apply it to predict what the weather will be like later in the day. I am particularly interested in how to predict unexpected temperature drops, as I have had this happen to me in the past. On another occasion I lay down exhausted after walking all day and fell asleep. It had been extremely hot all day but when I woke up it was dark and I was covered in dew, freezing cold.

Hi team, Just wondering if I do some study of meteorology in my own time, will I end up being able to predict weather in short-term timeframes without the aid of instruments? I know that in general, meteorologist have a range of scientific instruments to help them. But what I am interested in learning is how to predict weather when I have been out in the wilderness for five days. I can check the weather forecast, but that is less and less accurate the further ahead in time you are looking. It often does not cover the places I want to go camping. Among other things, it would be good to be able to predict if the temperature was going to change dramatically at nightfall, that way if I was ever lost I can decide to stay put (best strategy for being found) or backtrack (second best strategy for being found) depending on how prepared I am for the likely weather. I have experienced dramatic drops in temperature before (always had warm gear with me though), and it would be great if I could predict that.

Hi guys, So I was watching a documentary on Cruise ships and it was talking about how if you fall off a cruise ship it is likely that you will die on impact. But there are stories of people falling off and being perfectly find, while others have been seriously injured but still survived. So it got me wondering, other than the obvious issue of height, what factors need to be taken in to account when predicting the likelihood of survival when a passenger falls off a cruise ship. My assumption is that if a person can put themselves in a position where they go in feet first and their arms are crossed over their chest, this will maximise the chance of survival - or could it guarantee survival? Is there a way to enter the water from any height that would result in minimal or no damage (diving for instance). I genuinely don't know, it just seems like some people can dive from insane height and in makes me wonder if it is all about technique or if it is simply that they are jumping from the highest height possible and physics (rather than fear and the expense of building a taller diving board) is preventing them from jumping from a higher point. Appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks for your reply. So at the moment I am studying logic and the book covers the various purposes of defining things (stipulative. lexical, precising, theoretical, pursuasive). So part of your answer would cover a stipulative definition (Newton defining his theory for the first time (the purpose is to stipulate the meaning of a new concept) while also being a theoretical definition. The problem I am having is understanding where one definition purpose ends and another begins and where they overlap. So for example, it is clear that the definition of gravity or electromagnetism can be given theoretical definition for a purpose - of which I don't fully understand yet. A soldier is a soldier, is a type (kind of) of definition rather than a purpose of a definition. For example, if we said a solder was a warfighter we would be using a synonymous definition. The same would be the case if we said a Judge was an adjudicator. That is a particular type of definition but the purpose of the definition is probably lexical. So a big problem I had with the book is that it gave scientific examples, which are too obvious to be useful. That is why I gave the soldier/judge/ship as an example. I am sure if someone can produce a theoretical definition (a definition for a purpose) of one of these, I will understand its meaning better. My best attempt for a Judge: A person who applies their broad legal knowledge base to resolve disputes where two or more parties are in conflict. So the underlying theory here is that the judge applies a broad legal knowledge base to resolve disputes. The book does not clarify if it uses words like theory in the same sense as science does.