What Are the Red and Green Filters in 3d Glasses Called?

it is not paper and it is not green - red and blue precisely colored sheets of plastic are sold at theater supply places as "gels" for putting in front of spotlight for stage and film lighting. The exact shades needed might be known to the vendors - ask

1. How do I make Spotlight stop indexing my Backup drive?

Here's the man page for mdutil:I would use:

2. We are going to NYC and stay in Times Square...where should we go to have dinner?

spotlight! it is a fun interactive dining experience.

3. Why do people like to report every facet of a school shooter's life? Doesn't this fame just inspire others, so they can have their month in the 'spotlight' of the media?

This is a dilemma as old as reporting: If you faithfully and to the best of your abilities report what happens, all of what happens, then people can and will use that.This is how terrorism works, for instance - if nobody knew, it would not work. Terrorism is not about the relatively small number of people it kills or maims, it's about the publicity, public knowledge, and fear it instills. Its purpose is to cause a reaction. If you do not report on it, it can not cause a reaction.Another example is serial killers. The narcissists among them relish the endless attention and the groupies that come with it. The worst fear for a narcissist is to be irrelevant, and sensational coverage and attention is the opposite of that. Likewise, shooters may want the notoriety, if their motivation is primarily narcissistic. They want to feel powerful, even if for a fleeting moment, and revel in the notion that they will be remembered as someone who lorded it over others. Knowing that their acts will be reported on is necessary for that fantasy. So what to do, then? If you report on shit people do, knowing that publicity is the motivation, or part of it, for the act, are you complicit? Are you enabling it? OP seems to see it that way.What if you do not report it, though? In that case, you are failing your responsibility to report what happened, as it happened - who, what, when, how, and, where possible, why. Journalism fills a function in society by informing. If you do not look closely at terrorists and school shooters, you cannot begin to understand what makes them tick and, on a more practical level, make informed decisions how they can be prevented from doing what they do.Would people have recognized the signs in Nikolas Cruz if they did not have prior knowledge of the personality types involved in previous shootings? Does it make sense to ask lawmakers to craft legislation to prevent school shootings, and for voters to evaluate those proposals, if the press does not report on school shooters and the public knows nothing of the details of their lives, some of which are very relevant to the question how they could have been stopped?Here's the thing: You do not want to start defining categories of news that reporters are not to report on. That is the very definition of bias. You do not want to start making rules like, you can not report on school shooters. Of course we need reporting on school shooters. So, then, you would have to craft intricate rules for exactly what to report and not to report on school shooters. Who crafts those rules? Who enforces them? Do you really want to be in the business of imposing those kinds of editorial policies, by law, on every news room?I suggest you really, really do not , once you think this through. A free press poses a number of problems and moral dilemmas. The problem is, you still need a free press, and you want as much as possible to avoid legislating journalism - we want to minimize government regulation and interference, do we not?What you should be doing is arguing with your clicks and your wallet against sensationalizing and dwelling on school shooters for ratings and simply prurient interest. That's how capitalism and a free society are supposed to work. Do not reward news outlets that sensationalize and give school shooters attention beyond what is responsible to report facts and informing the public. Do not go to those sites. Instead, stick to responsible news organizations and reward them with your clicks and, where necessary, a paid subscription.And, by all means, keep standing up to shame outlets that do sensationalize and use shootings for ratings, on social media and wherever else you have a voice. That headline OP links to in the question detail, I saw that this morning as well and thought, This is excessive. This is not important. This is shooter porn. I, like OP, question the editorial choice to dwell on this guy's life in jail - sure, it's in the public interest to know what jail is like for violent offenders, but why him? Why did not CNN go visit any jail, anywhere, and report on people in there for much more common crimes, if the idea here is public knowledge and information? So, it's not as if I fundamentally disagree with the question's premise. There is a cost to sensationalizing, and we do need to call people out when they do that. I just do not think the solution can be more drastic than that