Dak

iirc (aaaaaaaaaaaaages since i did anything in .bat), the above will work aswell.

at a guess, your brain is just shutting down a bit, hence your vision isn't working properly. I 'enter the astral plane' (i.e., blurry, distorted visions and seeing things that aren't there) whenever i've been awake for more than 30 hours

isn't insulin done sub-sutaniously, and not IV? i.e., it won't look the same in a close-up. darkbignate, if you don't know what you're doing, you could give someone a heart-attack (air in veins), cause their vein to collapse, or give them an infection (gangrene if you mistake an artery for a vein, yadda yadda yadda). these are not abstract remote possibilities, they are likely (espc. infection) if you don't know what you're doing. and, anyway, saline is still only 'safe' if it's properly steralised and the right concentration of the right kinda salt (glucose would, iirc, be safer. i think skaggies cut heroine with it). maybe if you go to a joke shop you could get a retracting syringe that looks like it's piercing skin and entering a vein. as for the injection, i don't know how you'd create the illusion of the chamber emptying of fluid? maybe drill a discrete hole through the plunger and block the needle off so that the liquid egresses through the plunger (just don't show the top of the plunger, and it'd look like you were actually injecting). for a long-shot, you could run a tube down the 'skaggies' thumb and arm that he's injecting with to collect the fluid. if you have lee-way on the colour of the fluid (don't know what colour heroine is), you could just use air and pretend it's a colourless liquid. or, use a soluble red-dye tablet wedged into the needle to create the impression of sucking up some blood into the chamber for the full effect, as the tablet dissolves and red-colour spreads up the chamber from the bottom. if you're trying to learn special effects, then make the effort to actually make it a special effect and not a stupid effect (what with safety being a rather large aspect of SFX); if not, get someone else to rig it up for you.

a more fuel efficient enjine would definitely be marketable in the UK, where petrol is about £1/litre.

short answre: because i've done it another way and there'd be lots of stuff to change if i wanted to do it that way now. long answre, the program it's for is essentially a dictionary-lookup program. atm the dictionary looks kinda like this: start of a: 124 start of b: 3456 start of c: 209834 axx | axx | decreasing frequency of use axx V bxx bxx bxx cxx cxx cxx to look up a word (eg, 'banana'), the program reads the index, seek()s to the beginning of the 'b' words, then reads down till it finds 'banana' (and, the more commonly used a word is, the nearer to the top of it's section it is). also, if you're looking for 'banana' and start to find words that don't start with 'b', the program gives up early. tbh, i'm not sure wether it'd go quicker as a list because it's in memory, or slower because it's unoptomised, and i'm not sure how to optomise a list lookup? i suppose i could load it into memory as a dict{} which is persumably optomised for me, but i'm not sure how big the dictionary will be when finished... i was kinda intending to keep it on the hdd as a favour to the RAM

for the file 'new file' that contains: line1 line2 line3 line4 line5 I get this: Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Oct 5 2007, 13:36:32) [GCC 4.1.3 20070929 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.2-16ubuntu2)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import codecs >>> test = codecs.open('new file','r','utf') >>> test.readline() u'line1\n' >>> test.readline() u'line2\n' >>> test.seek(0) >>> test.tell() 0L >>> test.readline() u'line3\n' >>> am i misunderstanding codecs, or is this a bug? it seems to not be reading from where i tell codecs to seek to, even tho tell() indicates that it's seek()d there...

freedom of speech does not obligate everyone to listen to what you're saying. as much as phelps have freedom of speech, the recently berieved have a right to ignore them, which is impossible to do if they're protesting outside the funeral. as long as phelps have somewhere to say this, and as long as they're allowed to speak in political arenas, then i don't see the problem.

one thread per subject please; i deleted you other one.

well, i was kinda taking 'euthanasia' to mean 'merciful death', i.e. any form of killing that was less painful than living. I'm trying to think of it as simply as possible, and i think you can probably categorise 'suicide' into three classes: 1/ person will go through pain and then die, and wishes to cut out the 'going through pain' bit by dying earlyer 2/ person will go through pain and then live happily, but does not wish to go through the pain in order to get better 3/ person is not thinking clearly (ubiquitous 'other reason' someone might do something). if someone coincidenatally falls in another group, i'd treat them as in this one. i think we're agreed that group 3 at the very least shouldn't be assisted in killing themselves, and that group 1 should. group 2 is where we disagree. which, yes, i would consider 'euthanasia' because i think it's merciful to help someone, both to make the descision and to kill themselves if they descide to (but i'll call it suicide from now on to avoid confusion). In your (and tbh my) oppinion, yes. however, my point was that, as long as someone isn't having their thinking inpaired to the point where they can't make sane disisions, then shouldn't the choice as to wether to go through the pain in order to get ones life back be up to the person who's life it is? btw, there's also an element of practicality guiding my oppinion: if someone's going to commit suicide, then they're going to commit suicide; by helping them, you could up the chances they'll go to a psychologist and have things explained to them (eg, treatments, the fact that it will get better eventually, etc) and, if they still want to, can be assisted in their suicide so that it's as painless as possible, both for them and their survivors. maybe just making it clear that it's an option would help (iirc, depressed people feel less hopelessly trapped in a shitty situation that they can't escape after they've made the desision to kill themselves?). iirc, this is the stance adopeted in holland, and the suicide rate fell after they adopted it. maybe i'm using 'depressed' differently than you. i'm just meaning someone who is unhappy to the point where 'unhappy' doesn't do their feelings justice. possibly with skewed perceptions, lack of perspective, and inability to believe they'll get better as a result of their depression. are they neccesary results of depression? i.e., if you're depressed to the point where you'd consider killing yourself, would you also be depressed to the point where you'd be incapable of truly believing you'll recover? or, is it that to be classified as clinically depressed (which i'd guess is what you're talking about, you being a clinical psychologist 'n'all) you have to have skewed perception and an inability to believe that you'll recover, else you're just unhappy? iow, if i keep talking about depressed people, are you going to keep on thinking about people who have skewed perceptions because that's part of the definition of being depressed, or because it's an unavoidable concequence? otoh, can they understand 'you'll get better, but it will probably take a while, possibly up to x-years' and make a rational descision based on that? again, as a practicle element: wouldn't they be more likely to overcome their depression and actually make a rational descision if they have a psychologist helping them? i'd not neccesarily advocate automatically assisting suicide, maybe only if/when they've gone through a period of treatment and established that they can understand their situation and overcome their skewed perspective as much as can be expected of a human. btw, isn't 'feelings of everlastingness' common to any affliction? this is just anecdotal, but it seems that everyone i know who has had any condition (espescially bad, but also good) seems to have trouble actually believing that it's going to change. e.g., it certainly doesn't feel like my guts are going to ever get better (IBS for 3ish years now), but i acknowledge that they will, and am planning to do an MSc in gene manipulation techniques when i get better, so even tho i don't actually believe that i will recover as far as my feelings are concerned, i'm still planning as if I will -- i'm assuming that depressed people could take a similar approach? act as if they believe, even tho they don't?

Sysiphus, stop talking about sex!

well, as far as i'm concerned, i pretty much am arguing that free speech is cool untill it's really harsh. as far as i'm concerned, everyone has a freedom to say whatever they want, but not neccesarily wherever they want. by all means say that the soldures were killed because the us is tolerant of gays, that this is a good thing, and that they'll be burning in hell; i think people should have their right to say this protected, and should especially never be disallowed saying this in a political arena. BUT, that doesn't mean that they can say whatever they want wherever they want. saying it in their own sermons, in a political arena, in interviews on the tv, protesting outside military centres, etc, fair one; but outside places where there's likely to be someone grieving a recent military loss, and whilst the only reason they want to be there is specifically because they want to cause maximum offence? no.

just because you attend the same school as someone doesn't mean that you get the same education -- it depends on what you put in (eg, hanging around with mates and mucking about all day in the same school as someone else who tries hard to study != the same education). and you touched on something related in your post -- obviously, i'm going to be more intelectually apt than someone who has identical natural potential but isn't interested in intelectual things, in exactly the same way that i'm not as fit as someone with identical naturall phisical potential who likes excersize. because i'm lazy, and a tiny bit plump as a result

Ok. in that case, what would be your oppinion on euthanasia for people who have reached the point where it's probably not going to get any better under treatment (or do you not reach a point where you know that?)? well, i dunno. if we're going to accept suicide, i don't see the problem with helping suicidees, both to make sure they've explored all avenues of treatment and to help make it as painless as possible, for them and their friends/family. otoh, doesn't it again come back to being the patients choice as to wether they want to go through with the (potentially long) treatment regime in order to get their life back? espescially if they're old or depressed 'cos they have a terminal disease, and might not actually last through the treatment? lol@'not the same doctor' don't most depressed people know that they're depressed, and that the feelings will either go away or become lesser over time with proper treatment, even tho they don't neccesarily feel as if that's the truth? if that's the case, then i'd argue that they're objectively sane, but (not to make light of their situation) suffering from a lack of enthusiasm to actually stick it out knowing that untill they get better they'll feel like they do. IF that's the case, and as long as they're aware that the feelings will probably go away after a while, i'd still be inclined to grant them euthanasia: it's their life, so it's theirs to choose wether to go through a bad patch to make it good again, or wether to just call it quits. maybe that US doctor understands his situation fully but still descides that he doesn't want to invest the suffering neccesary to get past the depression and back to having a good life?

I almost completely agree with you. i'd have no problem with the church saying that the dead soldures were killed because the US tolerates gays, even strait after they were killed and on national television, essentially 'cos it's a free-speech thing. at the end of the day, the people who would be offended should be mature enough to, say, switch over channels, or otherwize not listen. But that, i think, is the relevent part: no one's perfect, and sometimes 'dealing with it maturely' involves admitting that you can't deal with it well and removing yourself from the situation -- walking away and ignoring it. so going to their funeral is harsh. You can't expect, say, a father to not get upset if someone basically says 'oh, your son's recently died? good. he's in hell now', and you can't expect him to leave his own son's funeral just to not be offended by some ****tard's oppinions. compare with: if someone calls you a dick in the street and you hit him, you'd probably get done for assault. if someone calls you a dick and you try to walk away, but he follows you insulting you and then you hit him, you'd probably get off on provocation because now theres no mature way for you to deal with that (you could call still not hitting him mature, but my point is that giving in to provocation that you can't escape isn't usually considered immature -- mature != perfect). i'm having a bit of a spacky moment, so sorry if what i wrote is a bit clunky and inelegent(er than usual).

Britain is bound by its laws, so if the queen tried to excersize power in a legal way, then one of two things would happen: 1/ the queen would succeed 2/ the gouvvournment would quickly change the law to stop her. in that case, i'd assume that it would come down to who has the public support. if the queen went mental, then the govournment would probably be allowed to change the law. if the govournment was corrupt and the queen was trying to 'rescue us' from them, then i assume lots of people (esp. military and police) would get all royalistic and support the queen against the govournment.

is deperssion allways treatable? Anyway, isn't it up to someone wether they want to live through the depression or just call it quits?

the queen has to invite the govournment to govourn, etc. it seems largely cerimonial, but the military and police swear alegance to 'crown and country' still, so i guess if it came down to it, the queen might be able to actually excersize real power. but i'd not imagine that'd happen under any normal circumstances.

why not? free speach has allways been countered by the fact that people are offended or otherwize upset: you can't say certain things on tv before the watershed, you can't shout '****' in a crowded theater, you can't call black people niggers, you can't follow someone around shouting at them or keep phoning them in the middle of the night, and you can't harass someone who's child has just died by telling them their kid deserved it and is going to hell. You only get truly free speach in valid political forums: i've nothing against them saying what they're saying, just not outside a funeral. unrelatedly: where did such a (presumably) small church get that much money?

yes, i'd advocate it if they're temporarily not of sound mind (drunk, short-term depressed/shocked etc). what i find creepy is the possibility that someone could be so unhappy that they want to die, but well-meaning people incarcerate them 'for their own good', thus trapping them in their life (and no doubt making it even worse in the process... brr!) the long-term insane are a bit tricky imo... i'm not sure where i'd stand on voluntry euthanasia for them. i guess i'd be inclined to grant them euthanasia if they persistantly requested it, tho if you can't be sure that they realise the repercussions of it you'd have pretty much no choice but to either deny it (which is potentially very harsh) or choose for them (which is a can of worms)

I think the point of making suicide illegal is to give you grounds to incarcerate someone for their own protection when they're suicidal, which is downright creepy imo unless they're not of sound mind. but tbh i was thinking more along the lines of not helping someone kill themselves, and the law telling people that they have to not help people kill themselves (at least under certain circumstances). tbh i'd be happy if most people weren't allowed to assist with suicide, it being the reserve of, say, specially trained doctors (both to examine the possibility of some non-fatal options, and to make it as painless as possible if the person still descides to go through with it).

What about if someone's clinically insane? Or if they've just split up with their wife? and are drunk? I'm generally in agreement with you, but i don't think it's as simple as 'any variety, any reason should not be illegal' (not sure you weren't just being succinct tho).

ghstofmaxwel has earned a 3-day suspention for calling people names

Tsk, you an your facts Oh? then how do you explain that piracy is centred around the equator, which is hotter than the rest of the world? http://www.icc-ccs.org/extra/display.php eh? eh? how do you explain that, mr GW-is-anthropogenic-even-if-i-have-to-resort-to-blaming-pirates-to-prove-it?

Go for it, and I shall take his place! duh... GLOBAWL WARMING IS A LIE! DUH, EVERY DAY IT GETS HOTTER, AND THATS THE SUNS FAULT SO SO IS GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

afaict, your reason was basically: 'it's happened before because of the sun, so this time it's because of the sun'. Which isn't a very good reason. correct me if i'm wrong.