The guy who typed in "ZERO" was pretty soundly refuted, and also modded to ZERO (snicker), so I wouldn't say there's a universal lack of rational discussion here, neccesarily. I sort of get the impression that you believe those who would disagree with you are all just like that guy. Maybe not, but your post really comes off that way. Anyway, being someone inclined to believe that, these days, the military mostly attracts poorer people from rural communities, glory seekers, and true believers in the bush doctrine, I'm not surprised that the military would support bush in the election, but I am surprised by your assertion that soldiers are not poor or uneducated (read: more poor and less educated than average). This is not meant to be an insult to soldiers, or anything like that, just what I would see as a consequence of the motivations for joining the military. Of course, the fact that you're not poor doesn't really mean anything, so I'm interested in the facts you claim to have concerning the average education level and poverty level among enlisted men/women. I wouldn't be terribly surprised either way, but I am curious.
So... all checkers and baggers should get different jobs? How exactly do we continue to run grocery stores if this happens? Face it: these jobs have to be filled by someone, and everyone deserves some sort of healthcare. Since the government and the employers won't help, all that's left are unions. I don't like it either, which is why I like the idea of public healthcare.
Even when it is acknowledged that the correct form is wet your whistle, odd stories about the origin of the phrase continue. The ever-popular one is that mugs or tankards formerly had whistles baked or built into them, so that pub patrons could whistle to the bartender when they were ready for a refill. Apart from some modern creations, no such mug or tankard has ever been found, nor has any historical reference to such things. So, folks, the phrase is a pretty easy one to explain: to wet your whistle is to moisten your whistling organs by having a drink.
Not sure about how reliable this post is, but it's interesting.
"Wet your whistle" is correct. It means "to have a drink", not to anticipate a (in this case, metaphorical) drink. The poster probably meant to say "whet your appetite", as that would be appropriate in this case.
that doesn't really have anything to do with circimventing security to change your grade, though. Actually, the automated graders make it *very* easy to catch cheaters this way. I always look over each sheet by hand, and if the grading script comes up with the same errors (or no errors) on two different submissions, I check them against eachother. I bust 2-3 people a semster this way.
If any student taking this class is good enough to circumvent the security for grading, they don't need to be taking the class and certainly don't need to worry about their grade.
If any student taking the class actually tried something like this, they would be severely busted as all the evidence would be right there in their code (so long as the system is like ours, where submissions are handled and logged externally from where they're tested).
For you and all the other people saying human eyes are better than a computer for grading:
They don't need to be a substitute, and they can help a great deal in doing a lot of the manual checking you would be doing anyway, as well as the organizational part. I'm a TA, and I use a script to check for just about every simple mistake I can think of, and then I go over every assignment by hand, with a printout of my test-script's results. The script doesn't so much grad ethe work, but point out any output that might not be exactly what I expect, over an assortment of tests. The students often comment that these scripts, which I also hand back with the assignments along with output from the scripts, help a lot to identify not only what their problems were, but what sorts of things they should have in mind when writing their programs. I then *carefully* go through their code by hand to insure they were using good style and didn't coincidentally happen to pass any test with code that isn't technically correct.
When you have over 60 students in a class and have to grade long programming assignments every week, these scripts are essential to getting my work done in a timely manner. My personal attention and comments are not replaced by my scripts, but are enhanced by my scripts. My time spent grading is made *more* effective.
Also (for cndrr): I might be able to provide the main part of the script we use, I'd just have to check with my instructor. The test scripts we use are fairly easy to write using it, if you don't mind doing it partially in scheme... (our department is in love with that language). Let me know if you're interested.
If you would "get ideas", then you wont be taking an introductory java course. Besides, it would be arbitrary java code, which makes it harder, and besides even all of this, if the submission system was set up right, you couldn't help but be on record for your attempt, and would then be busted severely.
A metal detector is not suffiecient: not all tools are metal, and sometimes patients are fitted with something made of metal that is supposed to stay in their body.
Secondly, and more importantly: murphy's law applies in hospitals. There are *lots* of operations performed, so even if something is very unlikely to happen, over time it is nearly garanteed to happen to someone. That's why you need to set things up so that mistakes are nearly impossible.
I never even implied that you said lay didn't have victims; just that his crimes were clearly worse than a "garden variety pedophile". Here's what you said about Ken Lay's crimes, in case you forgot already:
Even a garden-variety pedophile is worse
So, since you couldn't grasp my sarcasm, I'll spell it out literally for you: Ken Lay is about a thousand times worse than a pedophile. Is that direct enough for you, or does is still seem like a "straw man" argument? Sorry, you're probably still confused. Let me completely sink to your level: You're a fucking idiot.
So you'd argue that there's actually no difference right now between republicans and democrats? That's a bold statement. I've often argued with people who see this as an "us-vs-them" sort of issue and turn a blind eye to the problems within their own group, and I'm equally disgusted with blind partisanship, but you must also admit that the absurdity of black & white arguments doesn't mean that everything is a perfect balance of gray. In fact, I'd say that's even more absurd than a black and white argument.
Believe me, I loved bitching about the democrats while Billy Boy was president. Now I sorely miss those days, because these guys really take the cake...
Having a BS in math, I remember a few more things than that. Here, I'll be a smug asshole too: Do you remember what the word "causation" means? Or perhaps the word "relative", or one of the many idioms using said word?
First off, some freak *buying* kiddy porn = some kiddy pornographer making $. Beyond that, I still don't believe in passing the buck. Sure, you could argue advertising revenue, but the causation is just getting weaker and weaker. $5 for a kiddy porn producer does not enable one to abuse children. If you're going by this logic, then next time you buy pretty much anything in most retail stores you should directly turn yourself into the police for forcing 14-hour work days on children in malaysia.
A responsible person doesn't support or enable people who abuse other people. An asshole abuses other people. There's a difference between being irresponsible in stopping problems, and directly causing them.
But for argument's sake, let's say you have a point, and the act of some pedophile looking at kiddy porn, say, puts 50 kids in the hospital. This is still not nearly as bad as the damage Ken Lay did, and Lay doesn't even have the excuse of being mentally deranged in the way most pedophiles are.
yeah, white collar crime doesn't hurt anybody. It certainly doesn't take a chunk out of one of the strongest economies in the world, cause rolling blackouts throughout the state of california, and certainly doesn't ruin the lives of thousands of employees of one of the largest american corporations when it sinks. My point, basically, is that it's certainly much better than some freak looking at kiddy porn.
please enlighten me as to the depth of Hillary Clinton's corruption such that it meets the level of Kenneth Lay? Or really any notably corrupt politician?
Dude, if you want to have a point, you could have used someone like James Traficant, or that other democrat who hid all that money in his fridge. Really, if you're looking for an example of one corrupt politician within any circle of politicians, you should have to reach like this.
Though, honestly, you have to admit lay and a lot of other republicans right now are really taking the cake.
Why is it that every time I see someone slam the democrats, the response is usually countering the content of the slam, but when someone slams the republicans, the response is an acusation of blind partisanship, independant of the content of the slam? I don't directly support either side, but I know a lot more blindly partisan conservatives and self-questioning liberals than the complement of such people.
The republicans have pretty much all the power in government right now. If people are upset with the way the government is working, they can rightfully single out the republicans for attack. It's not neccesarily an implication that democrats are perfect and corruption free.
Gray and gray is just as much of an oversimplification as a black and white argument is.
For the record, the Dems are trying to block the payraise this year and have been trying to raise them inimum wage since the republicans took control of office, though the pay raise issue is likely an election year ploy, though not nearly as cynical as any of the republicans election-year bullshit.
1) It's true that red vs blue or whatever shouldn't be made into a black and white issue
2) It's also very true that there isn't exactly a balance of corruption on both sides. Actually, that's complete bullshit. The amount of corruption and idiocy in this current administration is completely astounding. , and yes the dems, while politicians with all the requisite slimyness, can certainly do better.
Hell, every republican administration in the last century has done better. People like to slam Nixon, but at least he stopped the war from expanding. Could you imagine Bush in his position? Could you imagine bush in JFK's position during the cuban missle crisis? We'd be fucking ashes! People need to face the fact that we're seeing some pretty serious bullshit from our government right now, and that partisan politics doesn't come in to the equation either in terms of black and white or gray and gray.
Slashdot Mirror
Instant runoff elections aren't the best answer to our current system. More people should advocate approval voting or condercet, if they're daring :)
The guy who typed in "ZERO" was pretty soundly refuted, and also modded to ZERO (snicker), so I wouldn't say there's a universal lack of rational discussion here, neccesarily. I sort of get the impression that you believe those who would disagree with you are all just like that guy. Maybe not, but your post really comes off that way. Anyway, being someone inclined to believe that, these days, the military mostly attracts poorer people from rural communities, glory seekers, and true believers in the bush doctrine, I'm not surprised that the military would support bush in the election, but I am surprised by your assertion that soldiers are not poor or uneducated (read: more poor and less educated than average). This is not meant to be an insult to soldiers, or anything like that, just what I would see as a consequence of the motivations for joining the military. Of course, the fact that you're not poor doesn't really mean anything, so I'm interested in the facts you claim to have concerning the average education level and poverty level among enlisted men/women. I wouldn't be terribly surprised either way, but I am curious.
semantics, semantics... jesus. Here's a better link for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war
yeah, and the fact that he successfully completed degrees in math and physics? That must mean he's fucking retarded!
try reading the article; it gets worse...
So... all checkers and baggers should get different jobs? How exactly do we continue to run grocery stores if this happens? Face it: these jobs have to be filled by someone, and everyone deserves some sort of healthcare. Since the government and the employers won't help, all that's left are unions. I don't like it either, which is why I like the idea of public healthcare.
Not sure about how reliable this post is, but it's interesting.
"Wet your whistle" is correct. It means "to have a drink", not to anticipate a (in this case, metaphorical) drink. The poster probably meant to say "whet your appetite", as that would be appropriate in this case.
that doesn't really have anything to do with circimventing security to change your grade, though. Actually, the automated graders make it *very* easy to catch cheaters this way. I always look over each sheet by hand, and if the grading script comes up with the same errors (or no errors) on two different submissions, I check them against eachother. I bust 2-3 people a semster this way.
If any student taking this class is good enough to circumvent the security for grading, they don't need to be taking the class and certainly don't need to worry about their grade.
If any student taking the class actually tried something like this, they would be severely busted as all the evidence would be right there in their code (so long as the system is like ours, where submissions are handled and logged externally from where they're tested).
For you and all the other people saying human eyes are better than a computer for grading:
They don't need to be a substitute, and they can help a great deal in doing a lot of the manual checking you would be doing anyway, as well as the organizational part. I'm a TA, and I use a script to check for just about every simple mistake I can think of, and then I go over every assignment by hand, with a printout of my test-script's results. The script doesn't so much grad ethe work, but point out any output that might not be exactly what I expect, over an assortment of tests. The students often comment that these scripts, which I also hand back with the assignments along with output from the scripts, help a lot to identify not only what their problems were, but what sorts of things they should have in mind when writing their programs. I then *carefully* go through their code by hand to insure they were using good style and didn't coincidentally happen to pass any test with code that isn't technically correct.
When you have over 60 students in a class and have to grade long programming assignments every week, these scripts are essential to getting my work done in a timely manner. My personal attention and comments are not replaced by my scripts, but are enhanced by my scripts. My time spent grading is made *more* effective.
Also (for cndrr): I might be able to provide the main part of the script we use, I'd just have to check with my instructor. The test scripts we use are fairly easy to write using it, if you don't mind doing it partially in scheme... (our department is in love with that language). Let me know if you're interested.
If you would "get ideas", then you wont be taking an introductory java course. Besides, it would be arbitrary java code, which makes it harder, and besides even all of this, if the submission system was set up right, you couldn't help but be on record for your attempt, and would then be busted severely.
A metal detector is not suffiecient: not all tools are metal, and sometimes patients are fitted with something made of metal that is supposed to stay in their body.
Secondly, and more importantly: murphy's law applies in hospitals. There are *lots* of operations performed, so even if something is very unlikely to happen, over time it is nearly garanteed to happen to someone. That's why you need to set things up so that mistakes are nearly impossible.
pedophile
n : an adult who is sexually attracted to children
rapist
n : someone who forces another to have sexual intercourse
So, since you couldn't grasp my sarcasm, I'll spell it out literally for you: Ken Lay is about a thousand times worse than a pedophile. Is that direct enough for you, or does is still seem like a "straw man" argument? Sorry, you're probably still confused. Let me completely sink to your level: You're a fucking idiot.
So you'd argue that there's actually no difference right now between republicans and democrats? That's a bold statement. I've often argued with people who see this as an "us-vs-them" sort of issue and turn a blind eye to the problems within their own group, and I'm equally disgusted with blind partisanship, but you must also admit that the absurdity of black & white arguments doesn't mean that everything is a perfect balance of gray. In fact, I'd say that's even more absurd than a black and white argument.
Believe me, I loved bitching about the democrats while Billy Boy was president. Now I sorely miss those days, because these guys really take the cake...
Having a BS in math, I remember a few more things than that. Here, I'll be a smug asshole too: Do you remember what the word "causation" means? Or perhaps the word "relative", or one of the many idioms using said word?
First off, some freak *buying* kiddy porn = some kiddy pornographer making $. Beyond that, I still don't believe in passing the buck. Sure, you could argue advertising revenue, but the causation is just getting weaker and weaker. $5 for a kiddy porn producer does not enable one to abuse children. If you're going by this logic, then next time you buy pretty much anything in most retail stores you should directly turn yourself into the police for forcing 14-hour work days on children in malaysia.
A responsible person doesn't support or enable people who abuse other people. An asshole abuses other people. There's a difference between being irresponsible in stopping problems, and directly causing them.
But for argument's sake, let's say you have a point, and the act of some pedophile looking at kiddy porn, say, puts 50 kids in the hospital. This is still not nearly as bad as the damage Ken Lay did, and Lay doesn't even have the excuse of being mentally deranged in the way most pedophiles are.
yeah, europeans are so naturally morally superior to us. The whole holocaust thing was really just a fluke.
yeah, white collar crime doesn't hurt anybody. It certainly doesn't take a chunk out of one of the strongest economies in the world, cause rolling blackouts throughout the state of california, and certainly doesn't ruin the lives of thousands of employees of one of the largest american corporations when it sinks. My point, basically, is that it's certainly much better than some freak looking at kiddy porn.
please enlighten me as to the depth of Hillary Clinton's corruption such that it meets the level of Kenneth Lay? Or really any notably corrupt politician?
Dude, if you want to have a point, you could have used someone like James Traficant, or that other democrat who hid all that money in his fridge. Really, if you're looking for an example of one corrupt politician within any circle of politicians, you should have to reach like this.
Though, honestly, you have to admit lay and a lot of other republicans right now are really taking the cake.
Why is it that every time I see someone slam the democrats, the response is usually countering the content of the slam, but when someone slams the republicans, the response is an acusation of blind partisanship, independant of the content of the slam? I don't directly support either side, but I know a lot more blindly partisan conservatives and self-questioning liberals than the complement of such people.
The republicans have pretty much all the power in government right now. If people are upset with the way the government is working, they can rightfully single out the republicans for attack. It's not neccesarily an implication that democrats are perfect and corruption free.
Gray and gray is just as much of an oversimplification as a black and white argument is.
For the record, the Dems are trying to block the payraise this year and have been trying to raise them inimum wage since the republicans took control of office, though the pay raise issue is likely an election year ploy, though not nearly as cynical as any of the republicans election-year bullshit.
1) It's true that red vs blue or whatever shouldn't be made into a black and white issue
2) It's also very true that there isn't exactly a balance of corruption on both sides. Actually, that's complete bullshit. The amount of corruption and idiocy in this current administration is completely astounding. , and yes the dems, while politicians with all the requisite slimyness, can certainly do better.
Hell, every republican administration in the last century has done better. People like to slam Nixon, but at least he stopped the war from expanding. Could you imagine Bush in his position? Could you imagine bush in JFK's position during the cuban missle crisis? We'd be fucking ashes! People need to face the fact that we're seeing some pretty serious bullshit from our government right now, and that partisan politics doesn't come in to the equation either in terms of black and white or gray and gray.
no, dipshit, no selection as in one page of results per genre.
Another $1/song service with absolutely no selection... It would be cool that they used ogg if I were ever disposed to use it.
except that the goal shouldn't be "to win the argument", but to produce a solution to the problem you're arguing over.