As an official and unrepentant Bush (all male family members, including Barbara) hater, I apologize for rushing to the conclusion that a Bush-crony run government department could have a crack squad of Communist anti-infiltration investigators watching over inter-library loans with any sort of competence. Most likely the "crack squad" are really George W's dealers, and the Communist anti-infiltration unit is apparently investigating all the "Red" Cross workers in the "blue" states.
As a loyal Bush hater (hated his dad, hate G.W. more, hate Jeb and Neil, and I ESPECIALLY hate that loud-mouthed annoying fucker Billy Bush;) ), I'm not gonna believe this one without more solid backing up. It is just the kind of inflammatory story that a) has a ring of truth, but b) could easily turn out to be made up. If I ever restate it, and find out it never happened, I'd be mighty disappointed with myself.
I'd like to know the truth of the matter, but as it is, I have plenty of verifiable words and actions that damn "43" to hell.
Yes,/dev/random is more like what you describe; it only doles out bits as enough entropy is collected to provide "true" randomness (which, unless you have special hardware, is not enough for Gigabytes of data in any short period of time).
Most of the time, users should be using/dev/urandom for their needs./dev/random should generally only be used by people implementing cryptographic protocols, etc.
/dev/urandom are bits from a cryptographic hash (based off a pool of "true" randomness). I just made a 1 Gig file in four minutes on my harddrive, using/dev/urandom, because it is limited by the speed at which the CPU can calculate the cryptographic hash function, not by the rate at which random events (entropy) are occuring on the system.
I have discovered that DVD has easily more than enough picture clarity for my pron watching needs, and I'm not sure I am really looking forward to HD porn... Maybe I just got used to grainy porn, but the high color fidelity, high contrast, and glisteningly realistic porn of DVD (rather than old school film transfer) is already more than a bit off-putting for me, sometimes.
As for dual angles: I wish they'd pick one angle and stick to it (hey, no pun intended), rather than have a movie edited to constantly switch cameras on me. Whenever it switches to bung-hole cam, I hit the alternate angle button, and by the time it actually switches (a few seconds), the movie cuts back to brown-eye-vision. If they really want to advance the technology, they should build a "hairy, bobbing man-ass" pixelizer right into the DVDs, for us more reserved porn enthusiasts.
What I accept is that you have no desire to actually have a discussion. *I'm* not the one you originally challenged, so I don't feel obligated to do anything for you. But I did ask you some questions, which you avoided answering, and you keep seeming to equate a comment about "right wingers", to "church-goers" or "those of religious faith". Whatever, as you demand, I personally will "accept the fact that assumption that those of religious faith equate morality with religion absolutly for all people is just nonsense." Doesn't seem to be what the original point was, however. HAND.
He said "right wingers", not the members of churches of the United States. Would you be satisfied with quotes from many acknowledged and prominent "right wingers", like say Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Rielly (arguably), or Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter, or George Bush Sr., or Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or etc.?
Assuming any of the above people are actually church members, I'm positive I can find quotes from most or all of them that support the claim. Coulter's claims are particularly entertaining (and easily found on google), while George Bush's famous slam against athiests, that they were not "patriots or citizens" was downright scary.
Granted, I'd say none of the above are respectable sources, so you may win on a technicality.
I have to say, I couldn't disagree more with just about everything you've said, so I think I'll just have to drop it. However, if your definition of "left" is moonbat, then I suppose you have a point, but only a definitional technicality.
I like the Daily Show version (which was actually a parody of the Israel-Palestine situation):
This land is my land, this land is my land, this land is my land, this land is my land, this land is my land, this land is my-y land, this land was made for me-e-e.
Ah, the legendary inclusiveness and tolerance the left is famous for
So one MUST be "left" if they don't asbcribe to religious faith? That seems to be your assumption here.
After all it was RAH who said "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
That's a good one; I'll have to remember it.
And yes, science IS a religion, although of it's own admission an incomplete one.
I say that science is NOT a religion, although many scientists are (and have been, historically) religious. I've always found the argument that "science is itself a religion" to be non-sensical. That is like saying, "All philosophies are religions." Religion and philosophy and science may all require faith, but not all faith is religious faith.
My definition of religion is (I think) somewhat practical. If it directs people to pray, it is a religion. That seems to cover nearly all the religions I know, and sets them quite apart from the scientific method.
Actually, I concede the validity of your point, and certainly I think it is important for programmers to understand the computed GOTO technique. Some languages, such as Fortran, support it directly.
I personally feel it should always be used judiciously, and as least for C/C++, etc. probably not at all unless in the most extreme cases (ie. no other technique can be imagined). In your second example, above, I'd venture that either "inline" or macro (ab)use could come to the rescue; maybe, or maybe not. Some might say resorting to macros is exchanging the devil you don't know, for the devil you do...
That said, I use goto's all the time in C (for error handling mainly, where it must be carefully maintained but is at least somewhat elegant and canonical), and almost NEVER in C++ (which mostly obviates it with another set of complex symantics). I'm glad "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful" has gotten some reconsideration.
Yuck! For this example, it'd be much clearer (to me), to simply initialize a function pointer to either foo or bar, and call that in a loop. I'd imagine it is just as fast. Jumping into loops can be clever, but is seriously non-intuitive, IMO.
"affect me", not "effect me". Things "affect" you. You can "effect" a change in something. But (generally), the terms are not interchangable.
Whatever, I won't even bother w/ AC, feel free to flame me. As for your overall point... Well, yeah, as time goes by it gets tougher to get a Nobel prize in these fields, but I think developments of higher temperature superconductors, better understanding of laminar and turbulent flow, discoveries of "dark energy", etc. are neat things, and have happened in my lifetime.
As long as we are all talking about this, it has always annoyed me that Yahoo Mail, by default, uses an insecure mode to exchange name/password information, and even refuses to set a cookie to remember that I prefer secure authentication. I have to hit the "secure login" button everytime. When GMail game out, it was the first thing I checked, and was happy that, even if the email session is not encrypted, the authentication always is. I've thought about coding a plugin to force authentication, assuming no one has beaten me to it. Meanwhile, I just mostly stopped using Yahoo.
For a very crude example, using your notation, try (plaintext,plaintext) -> cryptotext. Now, try to get plaintext back from cryptotext.
Often, hashes are designed to be much faster than a symmetric encryption, so they don't directly use a symmetric cipher, but many of the same building blocks.
As a G4 Powerbook owner, I'm quite looking forward to the switch. I want my Powerbook running OS X, but I need more oomph than I can get out of even the fastest G4 portable, and that is what switching to Intel will deliver.
Face it, Intel has the best chip for portables out there, and that is THE market to be selling to these days...
That said, when I get my new Linux development workstation in a few months, it'll be dual-core AMD based, not Intel Pentium 4. The P4 is total garbage, and I'll damned before I spend my own money on one.
This reminds of a time, years ago, when I went to a petting zoo in Reston, Virginia. They had a pair of Emu in a large paddock, and as I walked up to the fence (about 20 feet away from them), I felt something hit me in the chest. I stopped and looked around; I was alone. I took another step, somewhat hesitantly, and something hit me again.
I was looking at the Emu, they were looking at me, and the second time it happened, I saw something moving on one bird's chest. So, I decided they must have some sort of air bladder which they could pulse, and warn me to keep away. Which I did. I'm convinced what I felt (assuming it wasn't all in my head) was a low frequency pulse the birds use "communicate", the effects of which I felt right in my chest cavity. I'd love to hear from anyone whose had a similar experience.
MLK's non-violent opposition to Jim Crow segregation was a necessary step in the Civil Rights movement. But the movement didn't succeed until it switched to violence after his assasination and cities burned.
WTF??? Please define "success". The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed years before MLK was assassinated. What great success in the "movement" occurred after MLK, and as a direct result of violence (according to your assertion). Affirmative Action? Poverty reduction through fairer hiring practices? What do you mean?
As for Ghandi, I know much less, but I suspect you are being overly cynical there as well. In fact, in South Africa, I'd argue it was the peaceful, economic pressures that ultimately ended apartheid, rather than violent resistance (ie. another good example of what peaceful resistance can sometimes achieve). Years and years after Ghandi's involvement, yes; but effective nonetheless.
The first sentence simply says that the "People of the United States" are the establishers of the Constitution of the United States (ie. it is not the business of (for example) England, it's government, or its people, to establish the rules and laws of our government). Quite clear, and in no way indicative that the rights of man apply ONLY to U.S. citizens.
The Constitution explicitly grants rights & powers to the government.
Yes
Nothing in the Constitution applies to non-citizens unless explicitly stated.
It would be better if you had said, "If something in the Constitution does not explicitly say it also applies to non-citizens, that means nothing." The Consitution establishes federal power over the United States, and that implies that, for example, its laws don't apply to foreign people living in foreign lands. It also means that non-citizens living here don't enjoy certain rights that are explicitly granted only to citizens (the right to vote, for example). But it also means that not explicitly mentioning non-citizens means nothing as far as it's explict granting of powers to the federal government.
So, out of curiousity, could you please show me in the Constitution where the due process provisions explicitly apply to non-citizens?
No, because it is quite clear from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other sources (The Federalist Papers by James Madison, for example), that the Constition is NOT an enumeration of rights! There was great concern that even the Bill of Rights would imply that somehow people enjoyed limited rights that were granted by the government. Amendments 9 and 10 explicitly state that rights are retained by the people (ie. when in doubt, the federal government must assume that individual states, and people, retain their rights over the federal powers).
I suppose, to answer your question, that Amendments 9 and 10 therefore EXPLICITLY state that since no mention is made that the rights of man are retained exclusively to U.S. Citizens only, that non-citizens also retain their rights, as respected by the Consitution and the government so established. In other words, you framed your question from a backwards assumption. It isn't necessary to show that the Constitution explicitly gives rights to non-citizens; non-citizens already retain those rights, unless the Constitution is specifically amended to abridge those rights, and explicit power is given to deny non-citizens their rights.
And though I can't find the quote online, if you were to visit Manzanar, one of the places where Japanese citizens and non-citizens were detained for years without trial, due process, etc., you would see displayed a quote by James Madison that explictly says that rights retained by the people do not apply to only citizens of the U.S., and it would be a mistake to construe it as such. (His views over the "peculiarity" of slavery are addressed in the Federalist Papers, btw).
In other words, if the "people" have a right to a speedy trial, or free speech, or security from unreasonable search, that means ALL people. The Constitution says that the U.S. Government is required to respect those rights (and by implication, all rights of the people).
The government does retain certain rights over non-citizens, one of which is the ability to deport them to their home country (or another willing country). But, the Amendments make explicitly clear that if the U.S. has "jurisdiction" over them, they retain their rights. How much clearer can you get? As a matter of course, the U.S has recognized that deporting certain people (political prisoners, etc.) would mean denying them their human rights, and has thus kept them in U.S. jurisdiction. But a person (even a non-citizen) in U.S. jurisdiction is granted constitutional protection in Amendment 14, contrary to what you seem to believe. That right already existed, the Amendment just states it explicitly.
There was at least one obscure UNIX box that worked around the problem by running the same code on two 68000s simultaneously, and having one peek at the other after an interrupt to find out what had been lost.
I believe multiple vendors used the dual 68000 trick to help with memory protection, including Sun 1 and Apollo workstations, and some IBM computers.
I disagree with your assessment, although you were on the right track; The loop doesn't return back to the case label where the loop was entered, it always jumps back to the 'do' statement (synonomous with the case 0:).
The way you describe it is that the loop is unrolled to a size that is safely divisible into the 'count' value, which is an interesting idea, but would not be as efficient (large prime number counts would not get unrolled, for example, and a more complex computed got would be required at the loop end).
My take is this: with loop unrolling, one always has to take care of the 'remainder'. In the above example, the loop is unrolled to be a fixed size (8 repeated copy instructions, instead of one), and any count not divisible by 8 has to handle the remainder of the count after dividing by 8. Conceptually, you could imagine handling this remainder with a separate case section after the unrolled loop. In Duff's device, the remainder is actually dealt with first, by intially jumping into the loop somewhere other than the beginning, then letting the fully unrolled loop finish up.
In answer to the previous poster's question, the 'do' could (probably) be put on it's own line, before case 0:, but that wouldn't look nearly as bizarre.:)
Where would we be if everyone just ran from their problems, instead of standing up to them? I've been strongly tempted to find a "safe haven" from the moralist-hypocrisy that the U.S. has become. But you know what? There is no safe-haven. Things won't change until reasonable people start acting.
Where is that Einstein quote...
"Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds." Stand up to the opposition!
Slashdot Mirror
As an official and unrepentant Bush (all male family members, including Barbara) hater, I apologize for rushing to the conclusion that a Bush-crony run government department could have a crack squad of Communist anti-infiltration investigators watching over inter-library loans with any sort of competence. Most likely the "crack squad" are really George W's dealers, and the Communist anti-infiltration unit is apparently investigating all the "Red" Cross workers in the "blue" states.
As a loyal Bush hater (hated his dad, hate G.W. more, hate Jeb and Neil, and I ESPECIALLY hate that loud-mouthed annoying fucker Billy Bush ;) ), I'm not gonna believe this one without more solid backing up. It is just the kind of inflammatory story that a) has a ring of truth, but b) could easily turn out to be made up. If I ever restate it, and find out it never happened, I'd be mighty disappointed with myself.
I'd like to know the truth of the matter, but as it is, I have plenty of verifiable words and actions that damn "43" to hell.
Yes, /dev/random is more like what you describe; it only doles out bits as enough entropy is collected to provide "true" randomness (which, unless you have special hardware, is not enough for Gigabytes of data in any short period of time).
/dev/urandom for their needs. /dev/random should generally only be used by people implementing cryptographic protocols, etc.
Most of the time, users should be using
/dev/urandom are bits from a cryptographic hash (based off a pool of "true" randomness). I just made a 1 Gig file in four minutes on my harddrive, using /dev/urandom, because it is limited by the speed at which the CPU can calculate the cryptographic hash function, not by the rate at which random events (entropy) are occuring on the system.
I have discovered that DVD has easily more than enough picture clarity for my pron watching needs, and I'm not sure I am really looking forward to HD porn... Maybe I just got used to grainy porn, but the high color fidelity, high contrast, and glisteningly realistic porn of DVD (rather than old school film transfer) is already more than a bit off-putting for me, sometimes.
As for dual angles: I wish they'd pick one angle and stick to it (hey, no pun intended), rather than have a movie edited to constantly switch cameras on me. Whenever it switches to bung-hole cam, I hit the alternate angle button, and by the time it actually switches (a few seconds), the movie cuts back to brown-eye-vision. If they really want to advance the technology, they should build a "hairy, bobbing man-ass" pixelizer right into the DVDs, for us more reserved porn enthusiasts.
What I accept is that you have no desire to actually have a discussion. *I'm* not the one you originally challenged, so I don't feel obligated to do anything for you. But I did ask you some questions, which you avoided answering, and you keep seeming to equate a comment about "right wingers", to "church-goers" or "those of religious faith". Whatever, as you demand, I personally will "accept the fact that assumption that those of religious faith equate morality with religion absolutly for all people is just nonsense." Doesn't seem to be what the original point was, however. HAND.
He said "right wingers", not the members of churches of the United States. Would you be satisfied with quotes from many acknowledged and prominent "right wingers", like say Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Rielly (arguably), or Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter, or George Bush Sr., or Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or etc.?
Assuming any of the above people are actually church members, I'm positive I can find quotes from most or all of them that support the claim. Coulter's claims are particularly entertaining (and easily found on google), while George Bush's famous slam against athiests, that they were not "patriots or citizens" was downright scary.
Granted, I'd say none of the above are respectable sources, so you may win on a technicality.
Optimus Prime was not a number.
I have to say, I couldn't disagree more with just about everything you've said, so I think I'll just have to drop it.
However, if your definition of "left" is moonbat, then I suppose you have a point, but only a definitional technicality.
So one MUST be "left" if they don't asbcribe to religious faith? That seems to be your assumption here.
That's a good one; I'll have to remember it.
I say that science is NOT a religion, although many scientists are (and have been, historically) religious. I've always found the argument that "science is itself a religion" to be non-sensical. That is like saying, "All philosophies are religions." Religion and philosophy and science may all require faith, but not all faith is religious faith.
My definition of religion is (I think) somewhat practical. If it directs people to pray, it is a religion. That seems to cover nearly all the religions I know, and sets them quite apart from the scientific method.
"Yuck" again! :)
Actually, I concede the validity of your point, and certainly I think it is important for programmers to understand the computed GOTO technique. Some languages, such as Fortran, support it directly.
I personally feel it should always be used judiciously, and as least for C/C++, etc. probably not at all unless in the most extreme cases (ie. no other technique can be imagined). In your second example, above, I'd venture that either "inline" or macro (ab)use could come to the rescue; maybe, or maybe not. Some might say resorting to macros is exchanging the devil you don't know, for the devil you do...
That said, I use goto's all the time in C (for error handling mainly, where it must be carefully maintained but is at least somewhat elegant and canonical), and almost NEVER in C++ (which mostly obviates it with another set of complex symantics). I'm glad "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful" has gotten some reconsideration.
Yuck! For this example, it'd be much clearer (to me), to simply initialize a function pointer to either foo or bar, and call that in a loop. I'd imagine it is just as fast. Jumping into loops can be clever, but is seriously non-intuitive, IMO.
"Affect"... "Can greatly affect"... 'effect' is a different word, with a different usage.
An informative post, and I'll accept moderator punishment for grammar nazi-ism.
"affect me", not "effect me". Things "affect" you. You can "effect" a change in something. But (generally), the terms are not interchangable.
Whatever, I won't even bother w/ AC, feel free to flame me. As for your overall point... Well, yeah, as time goes by it gets tougher to get a Nobel prize in these fields, but I think developments of higher temperature superconductors, better understanding of laminar and turbulent flow, discoveries of "dark energy", etc. are neat things, and have happened in my lifetime.
As long as we are all talking about this, it has always annoyed me that Yahoo Mail, by default, uses an insecure mode to exchange name/password information, and even refuses to set a cookie to remember that I prefer secure authentication. I have to hit the "secure login" button everytime. When GMail game out, it was the first thing I checked, and was happy that, even if the email session is not encrypted, the authentication always is. I've thought about coding a plugin to force authentication, assuming no one has beaten me to it. Meanwhile, I just mostly stopped using Yahoo.
"I'm a terrorist, and I NEED TO GET ON THAT PLANE! Here's your extra $600." Probably not the most viable idea.
You are wrong.
For a very crude example, using your notation, try (plaintext,plaintext) -> cryptotext. Now, try to get plaintext back from cryptotext.
Often, hashes are designed to be much faster than a symmetric encryption, so they don't directly use a symmetric cipher, but many of the same building blocks.
As a G4 Powerbook owner, I'm quite looking forward to the switch. I want my Powerbook running OS X, but I need more oomph than I can get out of even the fastest G4 portable, and that is what switching to Intel will deliver.
Face it, Intel has the best chip for portables out there, and that is THE market to be selling to these days...
That said, when I get my new Linux development workstation in a few months, it'll be dual-core AMD based, not Intel Pentium 4. The P4 is total garbage, and I'll damned before I spend my own money on one.
This reminds of a time, years ago, when I went to a petting zoo in Reston, Virginia. They had a pair of Emu in a large paddock, and as I walked up to the fence (about 20 feet away from them), I felt something hit me in the chest. I stopped and looked around; I was alone. I took another step, somewhat hesitantly, and something hit me again.
I was looking at the Emu, they were looking at me, and the second time it happened, I saw something moving on one bird's chest. So, I decided they must have some sort of air bladder which they could pulse, and warn me to keep away. Which I did. I'm convinced what I felt (assuming it wasn't all in my head) was a low frequency pulse the birds use "communicate", the effects of which I felt right in my chest cavity. I'd love to hear from anyone whose had a similar experience.
MLK's non-violent opposition to Jim Crow segregation was a necessary step in the Civil Rights movement. But the movement didn't succeed until it switched to violence after his assasination and cities burned.
WTF??? Please define "success". The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed years before MLK was assassinated. What great success in the "movement" occurred after MLK, and as a direct result of violence (according to your assertion). Affirmative Action? Poverty reduction through fairer hiring practices? What do you mean?
As for Ghandi, I know much less, but I suspect you are being overly cynical there as well. In fact, in South Africa, I'd argue it was the peaceful, economic pressures that ultimately ended apartheid, rather than violent resistance (ie. another good example of what peaceful resistance can sometimes achieve). Years and years after Ghandi's involvement, yes; but effective nonetheless.
The first sentence simply says that the "People of the United States" are the establishers of the Constitution of the United States (ie. it is not the business of (for example) England, it's government, or its people, to establish the rules and laws of our government). Quite clear, and in no way indicative that the rights of man apply ONLY to U.S. citizens.
The Constitution explicitly grants rights & powers to the government.
Yes
Nothing in the Constitution applies to non-citizens unless explicitly stated.
It would be better if you had said, "If something in the Constitution does not explicitly say it also applies to non-citizens, that means nothing." The Consitution establishes federal power over the United States, and that implies that, for example, its laws don't apply to foreign people living in foreign lands. It also means that non-citizens living here don't enjoy certain rights that are explicitly granted only to citizens (the right to vote, for example). But it also means that not explicitly mentioning non-citizens means nothing as far as it's explict granting of powers to the federal government.
So, out of curiousity, could you please show me in the Constitution where the due process provisions explicitly apply to non-citizens?
No, because it is quite clear from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other sources (The Federalist Papers by James Madison, for example), that the Constition is NOT an enumeration of rights! There was great concern that even the Bill of Rights would imply that somehow people enjoyed limited rights that were granted by the government. Amendments 9 and 10 explicitly state that rights are retained by the people (ie. when in doubt, the federal government must assume that individual states, and people, retain their rights over the federal powers).
I suppose, to answer your question, that Amendments 9 and 10 therefore EXPLICITLY state that since no mention is made that the rights of man are retained exclusively to U.S. Citizens only, that non-citizens also retain their rights, as respected by the Consitution and the government so established. In other words, you framed your question from a backwards assumption. It isn't necessary to show that the Constitution explicitly gives rights to non-citizens; non-citizens already retain those rights, unless the Constitution is specifically amended to abridge those rights, and explicit power is given to deny non-citizens their rights.
And though I can't find the quote online, if you were to visit Manzanar, one of the places where Japanese citizens and non-citizens were detained for years without trial, due process, etc., you would see displayed a quote by James Madison that explictly says that rights retained by the people do not apply to only citizens of the U.S., and it would be a mistake to construe it as such. (His views over the "peculiarity" of slavery are addressed in the Federalist Papers, btw).
In other words, if the "people" have a right to a speedy trial, or free speech, or security from unreasonable search, that means ALL people. The Constitution says that the U.S. Government is required to respect those rights (and by implication, all rights of the people).
The government does retain certain rights over non-citizens, one of which is the ability to deport them to their home country (or another willing country). But, the Amendments make explicitly clear that if the U.S. has "jurisdiction" over them, they retain their rights. How much clearer can you get? As a matter of course, the U.S has recognized that deporting certain people (political prisoners, etc.) would mean denying them their human rights, and has thus kept them in U.S. jurisdiction. But a person (even a non-citizen) in U.S. jurisdiction is granted constitutional protection in Amendment 14, contrary to what you seem to believe. That right already existed, the Amendment just states it explicitly.
There was at least one obscure UNIX box that worked around the problem by running the same code on two 68000s simultaneously, and having one peek at the other after an interrupt to find out what had been lost.
I believe multiple vendors used the dual 68000 trick to help with memory protection, including Sun 1 and Apollo workstations, and some IBM computers.
I disagree with your assessment, although you were on the right track; The loop doesn't return back to the case label where the loop was entered, it always jumps back to the 'do' statement (synonomous with the case 0:).
:)
The way you describe it is that the loop is unrolled to a size that is safely divisible into the 'count' value, which is an interesting idea, but would not be as efficient (large prime number counts would not get unrolled, for example, and a more complex computed got would be required at the loop end).
My take is this: with loop unrolling, one always has to take care of the 'remainder'. In the above example, the loop is unrolled to be a fixed size (8 repeated copy instructions, instead of one), and any count not divisible by 8 has to handle the remainder of the count after dividing by 8. Conceptually, you could imagine handling this remainder with a separate case section after the unrolled loop. In Duff's device, the remainder is actually dealt with first, by intially jumping into the loop somewhere other than the beginning, then letting the fully unrolled loop finish up.
In answer to the previous poster's question, the 'do' could (probably) be put on it's own line, before case 0:, but that wouldn't look nearly as bizarre.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong too. I hope not.
Where would we be if everyone just ran from their problems, instead of standing up to them? I've been strongly tempted to find a "safe haven" from the moralist-hypocrisy that the U.S. has become. But you know what? There is no safe-haven. Things won't change until reasonable people start acting.
Where is that Einstein quote...
"Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds." Stand up to the opposition!