If this is the dialog in question, then I think even I would have clicked 'Ok',
I would wonder what right IE has to proxy as my OS and terminate another program and I would get suspicious. Then I would think "oh yeah, this is Microsoft, they do stuff like that all the time." And then I would say to myself, "hey, this is some other person's computer, who gives a fuck?" And then I would click ok and finish taking the stupid test and get my $20.00 for being a test subject and get the hell out of there and then never think of it again, until I saw it on/. Then I would say to myself "Hahaha. Those dumbasses at PCU didn't know how to do science. Of course the subjects are going to click through whatever--they just want to get out of there. Looks like they got in a good journal. Man, that journal got duped. I wonder who the tards were who reviewed that paper...Hey look, a twitter post and I just blew my chance to mod this thread. Damnit."
...In fact, we are told how afraid we should be. How fucked up is that? I was in an airport and they said "the current threat level is orange" and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. So let me reiterate that for you in capital levels so you can think about it for a second: YOU ARE TOLD HOW AFRAID TO BE. Can you wrap your mind around that? That's out of some sort of dystopian reality to be told how afraid to be. I mean, you don't even have to scare people at that point, you just tell them "be orange afraid", and then they'll get orange afraid for you. If they are frightened enough they'll do anything you want. That's why a gun to the head is so effective at extracting a wallet from someone--FEAR! And now we can get our fear without anyone doing anything really scary. They tell us a color and we get consummately afraid. Its Pavlovian at this point. By the way, my signature has been the same for months. I didn't change it recently for this thread...I'm just god damned prescient, that's all.
I tend to think of Democrats as being afraid of things unrelated to defense.
The entire republican agenda for the last 8 years has been based on fear. Lets examine the word "Terrorism" for a second. See that first part? Its "Terror", a synonym for fear. They go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq because of "Terror" (fear). They want war with Iran because of "Terror" (fear). Republicans sell "Terrorism" (fear) on an industrial scale and "Terrorism" (fear) is what republicans want you thinking about when you vote for them. Why do you think they all want a war hero for president, to protect them from "Terrorism" (fear).
Everyone's mom once said "there is nothing to fear but fear itself", and the whole "Terrorism" scare means we have finally achieved a state of fearing fear itself. Personally, as someone who doesn't scare so easily, our knee jerk fear of terrorists disgusts the hell out of me.
"Government should not do anything that can be done by the private sector."
You forgot "except bail out the mortgage and credit industries, socialize risk, thereby use taxpayer money to underwrite a housing boom post hoc, and provide low income housing to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it via foreclosure auctions."
If you think about it, the republicans have managed to do with irresponsible deregulation what the dems couldn't do with legitimate legislation!
Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilized countries have.
That would be great in the United States of Pretendland. But in the United States of America, you have a federation of states and this federation has an electoral college. The states get to make their own laws about how they assign their electoral college votes. Since Texas has made those laws they should be obeyed. We see similar appeals for obyeing the law when it comes to not smoking pot or not killing people in cold blood or not drinking and driving. We call this concept the "Rule of Law".
where small children work for pennies a day tearing apart electronics and melting down circuitry to get the raw valuable metals
Yes, do it for the children. My guess is that if it weren't for the computers, people will find some other way to exploit poor children and pollute the beaches in these countries. In fact, I'm fairly confident the beaches were industrial waste sites before the computers got there.
You truly are the person that is expressing himself or herself in this post, and I bet it showed in your AMCAS essays and interviews.
The point was not to convince anyone to let me into medical school. It is this: the barriers to getting into medical school are artificial and have nothing to do with effort. You must know how to game the system to get in. How did I learn all of this? When an interviewer told me point blank: "this medical school and the rest of the medical schools in this state are in business to train primary care physicians, so you probably need to change your story in the future." I knew then that this guy was a great doctor who was there to help people. I had a choice to change my story, but I decided to stay true to who I am and look for a different vocation. I can't help if my attitude about the process is tilted. The other doctors who interviewed me were too aloof to provide this kind advice and so I wasted a year learning that I wasn't a physician at heart. But I'd wager that 90% of physicians aren't either or else they would have been quicker to give me kind advice. Thank you for caring, though.
We really need to lower the artifical barriers to entry to practicing medicine, such as unnecessary classwork.
Speaking as someone who got 34 on the MCAT and had a BS from a top-tier school and applied two cycles unsuccessfully for medical school, I can tell you the "artificial barriers" to entry are NOT unnecessary classwork. This is a myth perpetuated by whiny premeds who want to major in psychology with a 4.0 and get into medical school with a breeze. The artificial barriers are (1) finding the time as you are working your way through school to also volunteer at the burn ward, (2) knowing the "party line" when you interview for medical school. E.g.: "I want to be a primary car physician to help people.", and (3) having a good story "My great uncle died of colon cancer and now I want to dedicate myself to medicine." When I realized these bullshit components were what they were looking for, I sought out a different vocation.
So now that I have told you how to do it, young people, go forth and become doctors. Don't forget to major in something easy.
TPIP (Text Processing in Python) by David Mertz. It is a reference as well as one of the coolest programming books ever if you are a pythonista. I'd review the whole thing right here, but one should just read it instead.
Beyond that, I'd say that Programming Python by Lutz is one of the best programming books for Getting Things Done (TM). Its a book that takes some fortitude to read, but it is worth any python programmer's time.
The official docs on python.org are good for the standard library. I've never read Van Rossum's tutorial because I had already learned the language before I discovered his tutorial, but his other documentation and articles on python.org is excellent.
I still find my Python Essential Reference, 2nd edition indispensable, even though it's for python 2.1 and we are now at 2.5. I'm sure the latest edition is even better.
don't forget the world's possibly best-written programming book: SICP
Incredibly good book? Yes. Reference? No friggin' way. Buy SCIP if you want to understand computer science, get something like The Scheme Programming Language, 3rd Edition by Dybvig if you want to learn scheme and have a reference.
But since scheme is so simple, you should just move to SCIP anyway and muscle through it with whatever limited scheme knowledge you already have (even none). The difficulty in absorbing the concepts in SCIP make the scheme language trivial by comparison and your cleverness will increase exponentially with every exercise you work.
If they really were trying to prove corruption they'd have surely hacked the other candidates as well.
I finally found these emails on the web. They are a bunch of goody-goody feel good mush. There was nothing incriminating there, just some stuff that looked like an obvious hoax by a Palin supporter. That you are writing to an official doesn't mean it's official business. It's an easy "defense" if anyone tries to make a case of the emails. Plus she gets the privilege of claiming she was victimized without having anything really compromising or incriminating being released. Read the prose, it's made to give her a particular appearance and you don't see anything incriminating. Also look at the supposed text by the person from Anonymous. They use proper capitalization everywhere except for the group the supposedly represent. Why no capital A? Its Always a Capital A. But this person screws it up twice in the same text? They weren't in a hurry, they just didn't fake it correctly.
Evidence obtained in violation of the law may not be used against someone, even if the person violating the law is not acting on behalf of law enforcement.
It might prompt a lawful subpoena of said evidence.
You've called me a sheep and a hippie. Why do you finish your posts by calling names? Oh yes, you have a villain in your head who has many names and you see everyone who disagrees with you as that villain. What is that villain's name? Hippie? Sheep? Satan? Funny that the priest finished by damning someone to hell. What happens to the sheep that never find a shepherd? They go to hell, don't they? Religion rears its ugly head once again--very predictable.
God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
(1) Thanks for making the case for evolution. (2) God's winding things up and letting natural selection take over wouldn't be intelligent design, which is what I bet you are getting at. If you take God all the way back to right before the big bang and say he hasn't intervened since, then science couldn't argue one way or the other. But, if he hasn't intervened, he hasn't talked to any prophets, he hasn't had a son named Jesus, and he has never imposed his ideas of morals on the people of the earth. So scribble that in the margins of your bible, which, by your own logic, would not be the word of god, which doesn't exist on this Earth, by your own logic.
The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter.
String theory is not taught in any class I ever took. It's not taught in anything but advanced physics courses because it's beyond the capability of the vast majority of educators to understand. I would wager that you don't know the first thing about string theory and probably lack the proper math skill to even evaluate it objectively. Reading a watered-down pop-science book on the topic one time DOESN'T count as any expertise whatsoever. Being Stephen Hawking does.
So lets compare what an evolution class discussion might look like compared to a creationism class discussion. We'll start with the evolution class:
===== TEACHER: Class, we have finished learning the rise of the four legged terrestrial animals in the context of global climate changes a billion years ago. Any questions?
STUDENT: Yes, how do we know about the climate changes?
TEACHER: Good question. We know because we have rock samples that we can date to an accuracy of 50 million years and can compare isotopic abundance of key elements in those rocks we know to have formed in the last million years. Differences in the isotopic profiles between the two rock samples suggest rapid significant changes in the atmosphere that were likely to allow for the colonizing land by amphibian like animals. Rock samples about two billion years old suggest that earth's atmosphere before that time would have been too harsh to allow terrestrial colonization by any animal more advanced than an insect. =====
Now for the creationism class.
===== PRIEST: So now you have learned that god made the creatures. Any questions?
STUDENT: Could we also explain that diversity of the creatures could come about through natural variation and selection based on adaptive advantage?
PRIEST: God made the creatures.
STUDENT: But there is a geological record consistent with a diversification mechanism based on natural selection. How do we account for this geological record.
PRIEST: God made the rocks and god made different creatures.
STUDENT: Why would god deliberately make this geological record that could go a long way towards explaining biological diversity?
PRIEST: Don't question god. You are going to hell. =====
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
Yes, the facts are that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who does not wish himself to be seen, created everything, including mountains and midgets. People who argue it was another imaginary force are fooling themselves. The FSM theory should also be taught in science class because it is a dissenting opinion. The people who argue against FSM theory make me doubt creationism. Creationists are the same guys who imprisoned Copernicus for arguing that the earth orbited the sun. FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now. Only creationists would doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing why the FSM is the only true creator!
And while the incremental cost of sending a text message may be $0, all you have to do to send them is invest a few hundred billion in a cell phone network....
...and get the public air wave spectrum from the public or get popped by the FCC. Not a free market because I can't set up my own cell phone company right now. Deregulation means deregulating the air waves which means anyone could jam Rush with impunity, and you wouldn't like that, would you? Now, go back to your pretendsville and keep thinking we could have a *real* free market out there.
Yes, because everyone needs to be treated like a two year-old. No, we can't expect people to act like adults and be responsible for their own actions.
Please. You know and I know that the best sign of success is the ability to hold other people responsible for one's own actions. If this weren't the case, presidents and senators would strap rifles on their backs and fight the wars they declare.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is the dialog in question, then I think even I would have clicked 'Ok',
I would wonder what right IE has to proxy as my OS and terminate another program and I would get suspicious. Then I would think "oh yeah, this is Microsoft, they do stuff like that all the time." And then I would say to myself, "hey, this is some other person's computer, who gives a fuck?" And then I would click ok and finish taking the stupid test and get my $20.00 for being a test subject and get the hell out of there and then never think of it again, until I saw it on /. Then I would say to myself "Hahaha. Those dumbasses at PCU didn't know how to do science. Of course the subjects are going to click through whatever--they just want to get out of there. Looks like they got in a good journal. Man, that journal got duped. I wonder who the tards were who reviewed that paper...Hey look, a twitter post and I just blew my chance to mod this thread. Damnit."
magical terrorist detector
Since the test subjects were told to "act", I'd say its a "magical actor detector". These guys need to learn to do science.
I shouldn't have hit "submit"...
...In fact, we are told how afraid we should be. How fucked up is that? I was in an airport and they said "the current threat level is orange" and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. So let me reiterate that for you in capital levels so you can think about it for a second: YOU ARE TOLD HOW AFRAID TO BE. Can you wrap your mind around that? That's out of some sort of dystopian reality to be told how afraid to be. I mean, you don't even have to scare people at that point, you just tell them "be orange afraid", and then they'll get orange afraid for you. If they are frightened enough they'll do anything you want. That's why a gun to the head is so effective at extracting a wallet from someone--FEAR! And now we can get our fear without anyone doing anything really scary. They tell us a color and we get consummately afraid. Its Pavlovian at this point. By the way, my signature has been the same for months. I didn't change it recently for this thread...I'm just god damned prescient, that's all.
I tend to think of Democrats as being afraid of things unrelated to defense.
The entire republican agenda for the last 8 years has been based on fear. Lets examine the word "Terrorism" for a second. See that first part? Its "Terror", a synonym for fear. They go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq because of "Terror" (fear). They want war with Iran because of "Terror" (fear). Republicans sell "Terrorism" (fear) on an industrial scale and "Terrorism" (fear) is what republicans want you thinking about when you vote for them. Why do you think they all want a war hero for president, to protect them from "Terrorism" (fear).
Everyone's mom once said "there is nothing to fear but fear itself", and the whole "Terrorism" scare means we have finally achieved a state of fearing fear itself. Personally, as someone who doesn't scare so easily, our knee jerk fear of terrorists disgusts the hell out of me.
"Government should not do anything that can be done by the private sector."
You forgot "except bail out the mortgage and credit industries, socialize risk, thereby use taxpayer money to underwrite a housing boom post hoc, and provide low income housing to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it via foreclosure auctions."
If you think about it, the republicans have managed to do with irresponsible deregulation what the dems couldn't do with legitimate legislation!
Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilized countries have.
That would be great in the United States of Pretendland. But in the United States of America, you have a federation of states and this federation has an electoral college. The states get to make their own laws about how they assign their electoral college votes. Since Texas has made those laws they should be obeyed. We see similar appeals for obyeing the law when it comes to not smoking pot or not killing people in cold blood or not drinking and driving. We call this concept the "Rule of Law".
where small children work for pennies a day tearing apart electronics and melting down circuitry to get the raw valuable metals
Yes, do it for the children. My guess is that if it weren't for the computers, people will find some other way to exploit poor children and pollute the beaches in these countries. In fact, I'm fairly confident the beaches were industrial waste sites before the computers got there.
You truly are the person that is expressing himself or herself in this post, and I bet it showed in your AMCAS essays and interviews.
The point was not to convince anyone to let me into medical school. It is this: the barriers to getting into medical school are artificial and have nothing to do with effort. You must know how to game the system to get in. How did I learn all of this? When an interviewer told me point blank: "this medical school and the rest of the medical schools in this state are in business to train primary care physicians, so you probably need to change your story in the future." I knew then that this guy was a great doctor who was there to help people. I had a choice to change my story, but I decided to stay true to who I am and look for a different vocation. I can't help if my attitude about the process is tilted. The other doctors who interviewed me were too aloof to provide this kind advice and so I wasted a year learning that I wasn't a physician at heart. But I'd wager that 90% of physicians aren't either or else they would have been quicker to give me kind advice. Thank you for caring, though.
We really need to lower the artifical barriers to entry to practicing medicine, such as unnecessary classwork.
Speaking as someone who got 34 on the MCAT and had a BS from a top-tier school and applied two cycles unsuccessfully for medical school, I can tell you the "artificial barriers" to entry are NOT unnecessary classwork. This is a myth perpetuated by whiny premeds who want to major in psychology with a 4.0 and get into medical school with a breeze. The artificial barriers are (1) finding the time as you are working your way through school to also volunteer at the burn ward, (2) knowing the "party line" when you interview for medical school. E.g.: "I want to be a primary car physician to help people.", and (3) having a good story "My great uncle died of colon cancer and now I want to dedicate myself to medicine." When I realized these bullshit components were what they were looking for, I sought out a different vocation.
So now that I have told you how to do it, young people, go forth and become doctors. Don't forget to major in something easy.
What are the other countries doing accepting the waste? USA shouldn't be responsible for other countries' not acting responsibly.
TPIP (Text Processing in Python) by David Mertz. It is a reference as well as one of the coolest programming books ever if you are a pythonista. I'd review the whole thing right here, but one should just read it instead.
Beyond that, I'd say that Programming Python by Lutz is one of the best programming books for Getting Things Done (TM). Its a book that takes some fortitude to read, but it is worth any python programmer's time.
The official docs on python.org are good for the standard library. I've never read Van Rossum's tutorial because I had already learned the language before I discovered his tutorial, but his other documentation and articles on python.org is excellent.
I still find my Python Essential Reference, 2nd edition indispensable, even though it's for python 2.1 and we are now at 2.5. I'm sure the latest edition is even better.
don't forget the world's possibly best-written programming book: SICP
Incredibly good book? Yes. Reference? No friggin' way. Buy SCIP if you want to understand computer science, get something like The Scheme Programming Language, 3rd Edition by Dybvig if you want to learn scheme and have a reference.
But since scheme is so simple, you should just move to SCIP anyway and muscle through it with whatever limited scheme knowledge you already have (even none). The difficulty in absorbing the concepts in SCIP make the scheme language trivial by comparison and your cleverness will increase exponentially with every exercise you work.
Sadly, that's incorrect. 4 lefts makes you go straight. Try three next time :)
But you need to remember to go one block past where you want to make that right hand turn before you make the first left.
If they really were trying to prove corruption they'd have surely hacked the other candidates as well.
I finally found these emails on the web. They are a bunch of goody-goody feel good mush. There was nothing incriminating there, just some stuff that looked like an obvious hoax by a Palin supporter. That you are writing to an official doesn't mean it's official business. It's an easy "defense" if anyone tries to make a case of the emails. Plus she gets the privilege of claiming she was victimized without having anything really compromising or incriminating being released. Read the prose, it's made to give her a particular appearance and you don't see anything incriminating. Also look at the supposed text by the person from Anonymous. They use proper capitalization everywhere except for the group the supposedly represent. Why no capital A? Its Always a Capital A. But this person screws it up twice in the same text? They weren't in a hurry, they just didn't fake it correctly.
How come Anonymous isn't trying to crack into Obama's accounts?
Evidence obtained in violation of the law may not be used against someone, even if the person violating the law is not acting on behalf of law enforcement.
It might prompt a lawful subpoena of said evidence.
And I'll wager Democrats have been doing it for just as long.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think you have confused the issue.
You've called me a sheep and a hippie. Why do you finish your posts by calling names? Oh yes, you have a villain in your head who has many names and you see everyone who disagrees with you as that villain. What is that villain's name? Hippie? Sheep? Satan? Funny that the priest finished by damning someone to hell. What happens to the sheep that never find a shepherd? They go to hell, don't they? Religion rears its ugly head once again--very predictable.
God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
(1) Thanks for making the case for evolution. (2) God's winding things up and letting natural selection take over wouldn't be intelligent design, which is what I bet you are getting at. If you take God all the way back to right before the big bang and say he hasn't intervened since, then science couldn't argue one way or the other. But, if he hasn't intervened, he hasn't talked to any prophets, he hasn't had a son named Jesus, and he has never imposed his ideas of morals on the people of the earth. So scribble that in the margins of your bible, which, by your own logic, would not be the word of god, which doesn't exist on this Earth, by your own logic.
The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter.
String theory is not taught in any class I ever took. It's not taught in anything but advanced physics courses because it's beyond the capability of the vast majority of educators to understand. I would wager that you don't know the first thing about string theory and probably lack the proper math skill to even evaluate it objectively. Reading a watered-down pop-science book on the topic one time DOESN'T count as any expertise whatsoever. Being Stephen Hawking does.
So lets compare what an evolution class discussion might look like compared to a creationism class discussion. We'll start with the evolution class:
=====
TEACHER: Class, we have finished learning the rise of the four legged terrestrial animals in the context of global climate changes a billion years ago. Any questions?
STUDENT: Yes, how do we know about the climate changes?
TEACHER: Good question. We know because we have rock samples that we can date to an accuracy of 50 million years and can compare isotopic abundance of key elements in those rocks we know to have formed in the last million years. Differences in the isotopic profiles between the two rock samples suggest rapid significant changes in the atmosphere that were likely to allow for the colonizing land by amphibian like animals. Rock samples about two billion years old suggest that earth's atmosphere before that time would have been too harsh to allow terrestrial colonization by any animal more advanced than an insect.
=====
Now for the creationism class.
=====
PRIEST: So now you have learned that god made the creatures. Any questions?
STUDENT: Could we also explain that diversity of the creatures could come about through natural variation and selection based on adaptive advantage?
PRIEST: God made the creatures.
STUDENT: But there is a geological record consistent with a diversification mechanism based on natural selection. How do we account for this geological record.
PRIEST: God made the rocks and god made different creatures.
STUDENT: Why would god deliberately make this geological record that could go a long way towards explaining biological diversity?
PRIEST: Don't question god. You are going to hell.
=====
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
Yes, the facts are that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who does not wish himself to be seen, created everything, including mountains and midgets. People who argue it was another imaginary force are fooling themselves. The FSM theory should also be taught in science class because it is a dissenting opinion. The people who argue against FSM theory make me doubt creationism. Creationists are the same guys who imprisoned Copernicus for arguing that the earth orbited the sun. FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now. Only creationists would doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing why the FSM is the only true creator!
And while the incremental cost of sending a text message may be $0, all you have to do to send them is invest a few hundred billion in a cell phone network....
...and get the public air wave spectrum from the public or get popped by the FCC. Not a free market because I can't set up my own cell phone company right now. Deregulation means deregulating the air waves which means anyone could jam Rush with impunity, and you wouldn't like that, would you? Now, go back to your pretendsville and keep thinking we could have a *real* free market out there.
Yes, because everyone needs to be treated like a two year-old. No, we can't expect people to act like adults and be responsible for their own actions.
Please. You know and I know that the best sign of success is the ability to hold other people responsible for one's own actions. If this weren't the case, presidents and senators would strap rifles on their backs and fight the wars they declare.
but you need knowledge of the file system in question, and how exactly it stores its file names.
Its good you brought this up, because the poster went back in time and included it in TFA. Its people like you keeping these guys honest:
We did a default initialization and NTFS format from within Windows XP.