Dak

yes, anti-cheating doobries of that calibre are usually limited to universitys. and i know people who have managed to fail an open book exam. if you dont understand the subject, then the open book that your allowed to take in becomes an open book of gibbeldy-gook. for example: in terms of evolution, what is the significance of gene duplication? that question would take hours to answre by sifting through a book if you dont already have an understanding of evolution and genes. if you do have an understanding, then the book can be used to check facts and specific details. if you have half an understanding, then the book can probably allow you to blag the exam if you are cunning enough. but if you dont know much about the subject... open book exams rarely ask for something which could be copied strait out of the book. and if your allowed to take notes in, then you have to understand the subject to wright good enough notes to be of help.

if i may make a suggestion: it might be worth while creating an entire sub-forum for the issue of evolution v creationism. the subject seems to pop up in the most random plases, in threads that dont even make any reference to god or evolution untill someone mentions, in passing, something about a certain breed of dog that they own, and BAM! a thread that, untill that point had 7 replys, suddenly contais two pages of evolution vs guided evolution vs biblical genesis, with a side order of preaching and the occasional peppering of 'your going to hell, satan worshiper'. the religouse forum is bogged down with threads like these, and theyre sprinkled about the rest of the site too. maybe if the subject had an entire forum dedicated to it, and posts mentioning it in more than passing were moved/split to there, the religouse forum would be less annoying, the people who dont mind arguing with creationists could go there to argue, people who dont want to can avoid having to argue with creationists, creationists could be banished there at the first sighn of a lack of ability/willingness to understand science/logic/common sence/the right of other people to have an oppinion etc, and there'd be somewhere to put all the evolution v creationism crud that pops up.

what is it with evolution v creationism? so many threads get hijacked and dragged to the subject of evolution v creationism when the OP had nothing to do with it. we do have an entire forum for evolution, guys, and another whole one for religion. just an observation.

ok, heres one: you know the little title below our names, that reads 'baryon' etc. why not let mods change peoples title, and tell the mods to entitle people with a title that reflects their posting habbits. so people could end up with titles such as 'scientist' if they reference when appropriate and rarely post crap, and 'nipple-head' if they flame/troll. 'lizard-man' if they demonstrate a love of and deep knowledge of reptiles, or 'religiouse fruitcake' if they're willow. it could be used to enforse rules (hey, you trolled. FAZAM! in a poof of moderation-related-smoke, your title now reads 'shit-head'. go a week without trolling and ill change it back) or reward proper posting (hey, you post good - what do u want your title to be). plus ittd be more fun than 'lepton' etc

there are psycological reasons why women and childeren could falsly claim to have been raped. with childeren, it can simply be a case of attention seeking or difficulty differentiating fact from fiction, failure to understand exactly the accusations that theyre making etc. with some women there is a huge confilct between the desire to sate their sex drive, and their desire to not act like the 'sluts' they have been told that people who have sex outside marrage are, and this conflict can resolve itself by having sex with someone (satisfys sex drive) and then convince themselves it was rape (satisfy morals). its obviously inportant to check these options incase they are the root of the claim, but also, in cases of genuine rape, it is inportant to eliminate the possibility that it is a false claim originating from a psycological, umm, thingy, so that the woman can have her word trusted. the reason you wouldnt get psycoanalysed upon reporting your car stolen: #the psycological tendancy to falsly claim someone has halfed your car is uncommon #the trial will not boil down to your word against theres - itll be setteled with proof. if it is proven that someone you dont know has broken into, hotwired, and taken your car, it is accepted that it was without your permission. oftern in rape cases, the defendant claims he had permission. there is oftern no way of proving concent (or abscence thereof), and thus it is inportant to determin whether the victim could be lying, to themselves or others. i would assume that psycoanalys would be used with the same frequency of occourance in cases where a man claims that he was raped by another man, and the accused claims that he had concent, as the same mental prosess could be applicable: desire to sate homosexual sex drive conflicting with desire to adhere to 'poofs are evil' opinion that the person has been tought etc

useful tools which can allow you to answre most questions yourself: google google 'define:' operator wikipedia for more detailed info (ie, research papers), pubmed reguarding cheating: cheating is all fine and good, and alot of useful skills can be learned by cheating, but remember that to pass a cours you have to know the subject. cheating can be used to pass little tests and essays so that you have more time to learn the work, but to pass the big end of unit tests you must actually understand the subject matter. also bear in mind that many universitys have quite complex systems which are hard to fool. here are a few examples of my unis anti-cheating doobries #multiple choice homework tests are scanned into a computer. a mathmatical alogarithm compares all of the wrong answres that students give. any two tests that have a suspiciouse coinsidence of wrong answres are flagged up (eg, Q12: should be answred B: students 10 and 23 both put E; Q20, should be answred C: students 10 and 23 both put A etc probability of occouring by random chance = 0.23% ie can assume at 99% confidence interval that they cheated). all at the touch of a button. #essays can be scanned aswell. a computer program can search for homology between essays. #paragraphs can be scanned into a computer and compared against a journal database with a computer program that they have, which can even find a match to foreighn-language journals, and after the plagarised material has been reworded and rearranged. soooooo, possibly best not to cheat at uni level.

well if you want to cheat, the most effective way that iv found is to do the easy ones, and then compare with your mates, and divvy up the questions that no-one knows between you and share your results. that way, depending on how many people partisipate and how many hard questions there are, you should only ever have to bother finding out the answres to, what, say one or two questions at a time. dont forget to word the answers differently, and make sure your one or two answers are correct (if the whole class gets the same wrong answre the lecturer generally gets sus.) sometimes i think figuring out how to beat the system teaches more valuble lessons than actually doing the work. :ahem: i mean, it is the policy of this website to frown upon your homework-related cheating-ways. <-- consider yourself frowned upon etc

dus anyone know what, if anything, the operators # and % do in a google search?

this is off topic, but is that in some way related to the fact that most males on earth get erections when there ill? is it, umm, how can i word this, a hint to do the thing which would be the fastest way of ejecting (sorry) the immuno-supressive testostorone from the body during the time when the immune system doesnt relly want to be supressed?

on another note, imagine if he was killed, humanely or no, and then a couple of years later the real perpetrator was discovered. no amount of 'oops'es would bring him back to life, or undo the torture, if there was any. even a simple appology would be out of the question. these are the issues that the people in authority over this case have to deal with, and so if it seems, at times, as if they are being cold, uncaring and emotionless, its only because they are trying to keep a cool head and make the right desision. hope that all helps you see how lawyers and judges could seem to be on the side of a 'monster' bettina. although i do acknoledge that some lawers have simply sold there soles to Baal. and probably gotten quite a good prise for it too, being lawers and all.

do i take it that it that innitially you were offended, then you calmed down? if so, sorry for the initial offence and thanx for making the effort to calm down and not jus flame me. the victim is dead. there's nothing anyone can do for her now. there are, however, two groups of people who can benifit from by the purpotrates punishment: the family of the victim - and whilst they may wish for a grusom punishment for him, this is exactly the reason that victims or their families are not allowed to chose the punishment for criminals, ie it would generally be too harsh. its inportant in a case like this that the victim is adequately punished so that the family can have some closure, but i think that life (as in entire life) imprisonment or execution should suffice for this. i dont think that encoraging or satisfying blood-lust in the victims family would be appropriate, as it would be promoting a 'monstrouse' attitude in them themselves. other childeren its inportant that the perpotrator be removed from society for the protection of childeren. permanent incarseration or execution would accomplish this. torture would add nothing. the purpotrators lawyers are obliged to argue in favor of the purpotrator. its what theyre for. consider this (apologies in advance for the grimness of this example): you are at work one day, when the police turn up and arrest you. you are hauled to the police station and charged with the rape and murder of a 5-year-old boy, who was found dead and mutulated, with sighns that he had been sexually assaulted, in the basement of your house. a DNA sample is taken from you which matches DNA found on the boy, and also fibers from your clothes match those found on the body. the news soon gets out and everyone considers you a 'monster' and starts baying for your blood. it is obviouse from the way the police act towards you that they think that you should sit in the chair for your crime, and the lawyers face as he accepts your case suggests that he feels the same. however, he accepts your case and argues in your defense in court; and in court the lawer, despite his discust at your crime, argues professionally in your defence. it soon becomes apparent, by your lawers presentation of evidence, that you are, in fact, not responsible for the death or assault of the boy. the lawyer presents an easaly plausable mechanism whereby fibers from your clothes could have gotten on the boy. he puts forth and supports your aliby, and also presents evidence sujjesting that the window to your basement may have been forsed, allowing for the possibility that he was malitiously plased there by someone else. he spots an error in the way that your DNA sample and the DNA sample from the boy was handled, allowing for the possibility of contamination and invalidating the DNA evidence. after he has presented your case, the jury unanimously finds you not-guilty, and you are released. would you not breath a sigh of releif as you leave the court room, grateful that a lawyer agreed to argue your case and defend you even though it initially seemed like you were guilty, and he himself thought you should get the chair? it is doubtful that, without his help, you would be able to defend yourself against the professional prosecuting lawer. studying a degree in forensics, i can tell you that the way in which evidence is handled (and the way in which the handling is documented) is complicated, and possible sorses of DNA contamination can be difficult to spot. basically what im trying to say is, untill he was found guilty, there was the possibility that he was innocent and so he needed a lawer to argue for him so that justice could be carried out correctly. imagine another (smaller) story: you are mugged at knife-point in the car-park of a shop. upset, you get into your car and drive to the police station to report it. en-root, you become emotional at the ordeal and start to cry. being flustered, you take your eyes off the road without thinking to look for tissues to wipe your eyes. whilst you are not looking, a toddler walks into the road and is struck by your car and killed. in court, you agree to the accusation that you should have pulled over, or not driven at all, in the state that you were in, and plead guilty to manslaughter. even if the entire town is baying for your blood, your lawyer is still obliged to plea for a mersyful sentance for you, which to be honest i think you would deserve in the above examples. the lawer is obliged to argue for mersy, reguardless of his own or other peoples views. if you dont deserve it, you probably wont get it. if you do deserve it, you will only get it if the judge sees why you deserve it, hence the lawyer must explain to him why you deserve it. and it is the judges obligation to deside wether somone deserves mercy, not the lawers, so a lawyer cannot just deside to not argue for lieniency on the grounds that the lawyer does not think the guilty party deserves it. in short: lawyers must defend people, even people like the murdering paedophile we were originally talking about, for justice to work correctly. i guess thats different, if you wouldnt actually make it so if you could. no-one can help how they feel, only how they act. i dont hold it against the person for wanting to rape and murder a child, but i do hold it against him that he actually did it. so i, personally, wouldnt call you a 'monster' simply for feeling that he should suffer. my intention was to point out the hypocricy if you were sujjesting that he should actually be tortured to death.

so you would derive pleasure from the suffering and death of another human? and before you brush him off as 'not human', he is human, albeit an extremely unpleasant one. i would imagine he had a similar attitude towards his victim as you do to him, ie "who cares if this person suffers? i dont. hel, im even going to enjoy watching her/him suffer". and as much as you can 'justify' it by saying he had done something to deserve it whereas the child had not, by wishing a 'slow burn' upon him you're wishing a prolongation of his pain for your personal pleasure, a desire which does little to differentiate yourself from him. i appologise whole-heartedly if any of that caused offence -- it was not my intention to do so -- but i just wanted to point out the hypocracy of your views. personally, i agree that he should die. im all for mersy and giving another chance, but someone that inherintly evil... as long as there's no doubt as to his guilt, then i think that he should be killed. someone like that has no rite to live, even in a prison... but i also think that his murder should be as clinical and painless as possible. in some cases its appropriate to fight fire with fire, but to respond to a 'monstor' by becoming one yourself? i think that would be the worst thing that we could do, and it would sicken me were he torchered thus simply to sate the blood-lust of the people who are sickened by his acts.

what about the plane of light? i heard that if you change the plane of one end of a beam of light, then the other end of the beam changes plane instantaniously? oh, and just out of sheer curiosity, any specific reason for your name, crusty ass? jus wonderin.

lol never f*** with a psycopath, thats my motto. hmm... have you ever seen bald male genetalia? they look utterly rediculouse. dear nayru, this doesnt even bare thinking about. just thought of another improvment: i would make testicles detachable. anyone whos ever been 'bolocked' will know why. also, exessively violent townies could have them confiscated that should help pasify them

:wincing smiley: i think the females benifit of not having to menstrate would be greater than the males visual discumfort. anyway, if all women looked like it, wed just redefine our oppinion of beutiful and ugly. plus im sure you could do something about the hormones that eliminates menstration without this side-effect

whenever you view a folder in thumbnail view, windows creates a file in that folder called thumbs.db, which is a database file with the information on how to display the folder in thumbnale view. the files are safe to delete, and will be recreated everytime you view the file in thumbnail view. if they take up too much space: to delete them all: goto start > search > files and folders type in "thumbs.db". when all the files have been found, hit ctrl-A to select them all press delete. to stop them being permanently stored after there creation: goto start > settings > controll panel > folder options. select the 'view' tab. under advansed settings, tick 'do not cache thumbnails'

furthermore: women shouldnt menstrate. for everyones sake. they should be capable of getting pregnant once a year, same as other species, thus simultaniously: #making womens lifes more plesant #making mens lifes more plesant #redusing the risk of overpopulating the world another change id make: no more armpit hair or exsessive nose hair

hmm, the annoying phenomena of simultaniouse editing and posting. gills would go on the kneck, where they are during fetal development, and i dont see fish combing there gills. mind i dont see monkeys combing there hair, but, umm, i dunno. i suppose they might be like the nose, and require blowing once in a while.

whats what you thought? that if i hurt your feelings your hurt my body, that im an early-20s english bloke, or that gills would be cool?

::edit::on second thoughts, that was obviously the point that you were trying to make, and thus my post was a bit dumb. hmm, no delete button. how annoying. well, i guess ill just waffle for a bit and hope that noone notices, or that a mod deletes this post. la-de-dah, toddle doo, trumby-dumby-dooo. ::edit::

i get the distinkt impression that, if this is the case, you might be hurting my limbs ok, in fear of life and limb, i retract my previouse statment and replace it with this one: if i can remain an english early-20s bloke for a second: it'd be gurt quality if we had gills like!

how many psycological disorders are truly unique to their sufferers? what i mean is, most mental disorders (as far as i can tell) involve mental prosesses/phenomena which aren't unique to the sufferer, rather are more pronounced in the sufferer than in non-sufferers. egs: dyslexia: some people are heavaly dislexic. others are just 'bad at spelling/reading' schitzophrenia many people hear voices, oftern expressing thoughts that the person disagrees with, but can ignore them/accept them as normal mental prosess ocd i always have to check my front door to make sure its locked, oftern having to go back from a few meters from my door to check, even tho i know its locked - arguably an ocd tendancy (and pissing annoying), but i dont have ocd and it doesnt manifest itself in many other ways. yet people with this tendancy much stronnger have ocd. so do any disorders involve a mental phenomena which is unique to the sufferer and not present in the general populance?

pretty much. i guess it could diffuse out of one cell into neighboring cells (maybe) but its not transported around the body. if i could change stuff, id add a few more catabolic pathways. if we could some how chemically convert plastic to acetyl-coenzymeA, then we could derive energy from it. and are plastics not just hydrocarbons? i believe a way could be desighned, whereby a carbon of the plastic was oxidised and the whole molecule reduced to acetyl-coA, much like the [math]{beta}[/math]-oxidative pathway of fattt-acid metabolism. and add on a few other pathways to digest cellulose etc, and we could eat anything- grass, wood, plastic - the latter would probably solve world hunger and an appreciable fraction of the global pollution problem at the same time. also, id tinker with the immune system. id give our cells restriction-modification systems (like in bacteria) to confer cellular-immunity to viruses, and then id dedicate the cell-mediated immune system (with the T-cells and B-cells) entirely to fighting bacteria, cancer, toxins and paracites; the whole 'should we respond to a bacteria or virus' aspect tends to confuse the immune system sometimes, so it would be worth it to take the pressure of having to deal with viruses off of the immune system. thirdly, if i can become an american tenage girl for a second: it'd be, like, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo cool if we had gills!

to get to the 9th pit of hell do one of the following: betray your ruler or country (treason) betray jehovah betray your family mutiny i assume that certain insults agains jehovah (like nobbing a nun) would also send you to the 9th pit.

im doing this from my memory, so a few details might be wrong, but: a scientist working for nasa, name of mr(dr?) murphy, set up an experiment with crash dummies to test the stresses that pilots (possibly astronauts) would experience during a crash, or excelloration or something. it was an expensive experiment that was of the one-shot variety, du to the fact that the experiment would be distroyed as it was run. he checked all the expensive bits of equipment to make sure they were ok, then ran the experiment. a post-experiment analysis then revealed that the reason that he'd have to go to his bosses to explain why he needed another $x (where x is a very large number) to repeat the experiment was because a 50c eletrical resistor failed, and he hadnt checked it because its low-techness meant it failed only very rarely. he then formulated his law, which stated that 'if something can go wrong, then it will', as a way of teaching himself and others to always check everything to make sure its working. the law found its way into mainstream usage, whereupon i would assume it was changed to sods law simply because sod is more offensive than murphy, and whoever it was who 'invented' this law that just made our car break down on the way to the important interview is obiously a k*** and deserves to have a rude pronoun associated with him i think ::EDIT:: or is sods law slightly different from murphys law?