ydoaPs

I'm starting to learn python for post grad. However, I am having trouble utilising it. I can run code in the terminal via text wrangler. This works fine however, if I try and run it by itself it comes up with

 

NameError: name raw_input("Enter name: ")

 

I then downloaded IDLE and python launcher from python.org. However, it gives the same error message. It seems that I can only run by code through the terminal (I'm on mac). I am also at a loss on how to compile programs. I have no idea how to use python launcher and I can't find any tutorials. Can anyone point me in the right direction for guidance?

 

Many thanks

It looks like your version of IDLE is python 3 and your version of input is python 2.

It cannot be read as a conditional.

Why not? It's as valid grammatically as that nonsense pushed in DC v Heller.

Again from your post. I would like to see "every SCOTUS case" that "disagrees" with me.

See iNow's post I quoted. You know, the one with several examples. He already gave a few. What, you want me to copy/paste?

This is getting ridiculous.

First, saying "before the formation of the NRA" is misguided. As we all know, the NRA was founded in 1871 and for nearly a century was one of the foremost pro-gun control organizations in the country, focusing primarily on safety and training.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

 

Let's not forget also how among countless others former president of the NRA, Karl Frederick, advocated heavily for firearm ownership restrictions and came out strongly in favor of sensible protections:

 

Clearly, we're not referring to the time of their formation, but instead to the sharp turn in focus and propaganda that was seen from the NRA starting in 1977 (and bolstered by the Reagan administration):

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/when-the-nra-promoted-gun_b_992043.htmlu

Second, you asked folks to cite the cases that disagreed with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment prior to Heller. I already answered this myself almost 2 years ago in this same thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/page-4#entry794642

 

And as shared almost 3 months prior to that, again in this same thread, we have further support of this from the former Chief Justice of SCOTUS (not just any piddly ole regular justice, but the head honcho himself) Chief Justice Warren Burger himself said largely the same thing, as well.

 

Read more here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/?p=789430

 

 

But yeah, you're clearly right that I'm the unreasonable one who is obfuscating or being willfully ignorant.

My bad, but the time I said, as iNow pointed out, is still correct. Until 2008, the "plain reading" was the opposite of the one the gun nuts give it.

I see a lot of problems with these chatbots as being they contradict themselves

Have you met a human?

i've taken abilify to combat some earller bipolarism. i'm currently on some medication to fight any voices which i seem to now sometimes hear since atempting suicide.

the medications im on are ripisadol a divaporeox.

That's quite enlightening, actually.

The national guard is not a standing military force. Most members aren't serving 24/7

One weekend a month; two weeks a year.

No, it doesn't. How are coming to that conclusion?

Because I read your list and then read what the Constitution says it's talking about when it talks about the militia. It turns out that they match to at T.

And how does this affect even the plain reading of the 2nd Amerndment, let alone the interests of this thread?

You don't think knowing the context of an amendment to a text is in anyway enlightening to the reading of the amendment?

I'm not sure why the gun control advocates on this topic are not arguing that the intent of the founders was to provide arms to bears. They can't figure out what a militia is. They can't figure out what well regulated means. Making an argument to arm bears would be completely consistent.

Anyone who has read the Constitution knows what the militia is: the National Guard.

Could you please site the case?

District of Columbia v Heller

Until then, SCOTUS agreed that it meant what it said. Once the NRA got involved things went to [euphemism]feces[/euphemism].

Is it impossible for the government to be treasonous if they are acting against the people or their rights?

Not if you're speaking English.

Your definition of the National Guard:

See: " armed, equipped, trained, paid, formally enlisted, subject to the UCMJ, and under the command of the State and the Federal Government"

The militia that the Constitution is talking about:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

With the exception of your ridiculous criterion that it needs to talk about the UCMJ specifically (it didn't exist yet), this hits every point on your definition. Whether or not it was called the National Guard at the time, it performed the exact same function.

The militia about which the Constitution speaks is not some ragtag group of farmers that band together on their own. It's a "well regulated" (see Amendment 2) group that is organized, armed, disciplined, and appointed by the government taking orders from the government specifically assigned to the states unless otherwise needed by the federal level.

Your nonsense about the revolutionary war need not apply. The Constitution didn't exist yet, and what the Constitution is talking about when it talks about THE militia is quite obviously not what you're talking about when you use the word.

An ordinary militia is not, except voluntarily, subject to military command - a militia can choose its own command, or none at all.

That's not the militia the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution's militia is a military force maintained and governed by the states with the caveat that the federal level if needed. That's what it says it's talking about.

Please stop equivocating so we can get back to the discussion.

so here is a small list of some of the experainces i had. when i went into the hospital, there were two weman there who i had never met who seemed to know exactly why i was there.

one seemed to want to help me the other to condem me.

after i got out, in the morning i woke up, my whole body seemed full of light. i dont know how else to describe it other than that. lightr radiated through out my skin.

i read the bible and it said my word was truth. i condemned the world by saying one lie, one cheat, one steal is worth a pushment of hell. i went online and people were begging to be realased on a chat sever i regularly visit. i freed everyone, by freeing the worst person, krossos, who i later remembered from a book i read a long time ago is the god of death and destruction. he struck deals with people for their release. he had aparently had aleady been freed 7 times.

the bible continued to communicate with me. jesus said he was the true god of isreal and that i should know that becuase he sent me two helpers.

after a couple months i experanced a sort of 4th dimential reality. seasons shifted rapidlty, flowers grew and wilted in rapid succession, people scrabled for basic food.

shortly after, i had a sensation of my head dissolving in acid, after it was over, i read the bible and the apostle paul said i was sentanced to satan to atone.

a tv repairman came to my house to install direct tv. after he was done, i said, i leave you to your work, then he said in a near panic, "no your good your good." then he ran up stair, ran back down stairs, and stepped on my toe. he said i didnt step on oyur toe did i, and i said no as a way of forgiving him. then he said your running the show now. then the television seemed to be commucating with me in a simalar fashion as the bible. i read the bible and it said that i was satan, but that satan cant spit in his own eye. so i spit in my own eye to end it.

there's more to it, but just to give you a general idea.

I ask this in the most serious way possible: what drugs are you taking?

The second amendment doesn't confuse anyone. Some people just don't like the fact that it guarantees that all people in the US the right to choose to own firearms. You are mistaking confusion with willful obfuscation. Changing the constitution is difficult and they don't want to put forth the effort so the obfuscate.

It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you. It's only in 2008 when the court reverses opinion on whether or not it's about militia service.

Do you believe it was written to specifically protect an individuals right to own a gun or to allow individuals the right to combat tyranical governments and other threats to personal and public safety? While Europe may have had standing armies the States did not. It was the people who were to form militias and needed to protect their home and uphold law.

Considering the fact that the only crime outlined in the Constitution is treason, it's doubtful that the second amendment was written as a ringing endorsement of treason.

The Constitution is not talking about any militia in particular.

Really? Care to explain why it used the definite article "THE" and then goes on to describe "the militia" as *gasp* the National Guard?

Once again: No, it isn't. My local militia, for example, is every adult man under the age of 45. And the National Guard is a regular standing military force; armed, equipped, trained, paid, formally enlisted, subject to the UCMJ, and under the command of the State and the Federal Government.

The one the Constitution is talking about actually is. Article 1 section 8. Look it up.

Yes. The idea that science can measure consciousness is just plain daft. I don't know how anyone can believe otherwise when it's so obvious.

Yes. The idea that science can measure temperature is just plain daft. I don't know how anyone can believe otherwise when it's so obvious.

Peter may not believe it, but the fact is it must be possible to study it simply because there are people who do study it.

 

In the real world of medicine, people do measure it.

Your point is like saying nobody studies sexuality because you can't get a test tube full of it.

 

Meanwhile, the research goes on.

^What John said.

I realise that, but I'd still like to hear people's answer to the question- especially from those who think that guns are their defence against a tyranical government- even if they would need very heavy weapons.

So, (at the risk of repeating myself)

Do people actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had arms, the rest of us would be slaves?

The rich and powerful have all of the power and influence--we're already slaves.

..."Just as a thought experiment- imagine that I could copy myself- every atom, molecule and electron replicated exactly in terms of its position and motion.

Would that copy say he was conscious if you asked him?"

 

I don't know, and nor do you. What has his first-person report got to do with anything anyway? Why ask, why not just meausre whether he is conscious? Oh yes, because you can't. So you have to ask, and you end up with a science that is not empirical. Some science.

 

You seem to be ignoring a million articles on the topic as well as common sense.

On a materialistic picture, the answer is obviously "yes". This is Dennett's standard response to the p-zombie objection. If you think that p-zombies are possible, then you ought to think there is not only no third person access to consciousness, but also no first person access. A p-zombie is first person indistinguishable from a conscious "twin".

Even the dualists don't deny that actions are the result of neuronal processes. An atom by atom copy, the phenomenal zombie twin, will act identically to the conscious twin. If you ask it if it is conscious, it will respond as honestly in the affirmative as the conscious twin. It will describe its love of its children with just as much appearance of passion and joy as the conscious twin. And neither the p-zombie nor its conscious twin would be lying. The p-zombie doesn't know it's a p-zombie.

I don't know, and nor do you. What has his first-person report got to do with anything anyway? Why ask, why not just meausre whether he is conscious?

Why look at the level of the mercury in the thermometer when you can just measure temperature? Oh, yes, because you can't.

No. Are you ever going to make an honest argument in a gun control thread?

 

 

It doesn't. It assumes basic literacy, by which the word "militia" provides the meaning of the Constitution, not the other way around.

Article 1, section 8:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The militia is the National Guard.

The Constitution we have now was ratified with the Bill of Rights in it. All Ten. They were included because many people were balking at ratifying the new Constitution without those specific guarantees. The original proposer intended them to be part of the body of the Constitution, not amendments at all.

 

The fact that so much of the advocacy for gun has to be corrected on basic, simple fact - ordinary statistical analysis, the meaning of the word "militia", the circumstances of history around the Constitution and since, over and over and over again - is telling.

 

 

The problem that strong central governments disarm their peasantry to prevent defiance against misrule. That an unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time.

 

The fact that modern Americans often regard that as an unrealistic fear may be the single greatest benefit of the 2nd Amendment. Modern South Americans, modern Africans, modern Indonesians, do not enjoy that luxurious peace of mind.

 

There is also the point that if considering accidents (as was the momentary issue for the quote) "all those children" adds up to a one in a million yearly chance. There are quite a few liberties that Americans will not sacrifice on those odds. Does that make them irrational, bad people?

 

There is also the point that the 2nd Amendment was intended to restrict the government. Prohibition was intended to empower the government. So the Amendment repealing Prohibition would be the comparable amendment, not the Amendment establishing it. And we have of course a long, sad history of the deaths of children from the many ill effects of alcohol to consider.

 

If one were to compare the total deaths of children from the effects of alcohol, to the total deaths of children from the effects of gun ownership, counting all the overlaps twice, what would be the ratio - would you guess? Are you guys intending to use that argument to push for a new Prohibition?

 

 

 

Quit putting it on the agenda, and maybe over time people will quit fearing it.

 

Or at least you might get the support of those reasonable people - apparently nearly half the electorate - who have been voting against your politicians despite agreeing with you in the need for gun control.

So, you're trying to tell me that the document whose only defined crime is treason endorses armed treason? Not likely. Perhaps we should look at how the Constitution defines 'militia'.

It seems to me that evolution is off-topic, or not very important to the topic. More importantly and less contrversially science (the natural kind) cannot explain consciousness, and this alone means giving a negative answer to the OP's question. It hardly needs saying that it cannot explain metaphysics either. Horses for courses.

This is a very bold claim and seems demonstrably untrue.

No need to look too hard, the task has been completed. It;s just that scientists and professional philosophers take no notice of Nagarjuna. He uses Aristiotle's logic and an axiom of unity, and all else follows.

 

No need to look too hard, the task has been completed. It;s just that scientists and professional philosophers take no notice of Nagarjuna. He uses Aristiotle's logic and an axiom of unity, and all else follows.

That's pretty bad metaphysics if it uses Aristotle's logic. The topoi which admit QM do not admit a Boolean structure, but rather a more general Heyting structure in which the law of excluded middle does not always hold.

 

Yes, but most scientists and philosophers do not apply the laws rigorously. You won't believe this, I predict, but it is the case. In fact for metaphysics the law of excluded middle is no problem, nor the LNC. I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true for QM, once Aristotle is read properly.

 

This may be one of those various occasions where philosophy has let physics down, in this case by muddling the logical issues.

It's entirely off-topic from the source thread, so I started a new one. I'm dying to know: how do you get QM from Aristotelian logic when QM can't coexist with a Boolean structure?

For the fiftieth time: The 2nd Amendment applies to the US government. It limits what the US government can do.The US government may not impose an undue burden on the exercise of a Constitutional right.

Except, you know, that it explicitly talks about regulation.

Thank you: theory of evolution.... it has not been proven, I will bring evidence of the mechanics of the cell organelle which work in harmony but how or why is yet to be answered. example what guides centrioles to align Chromosomes and separate the cell?

Shame, really. Then again, it's what I expected.

so you have no defense, just quips, smug dude

If you think that your half remembered poorly taught biology course means you understand evolution, there's nothing more to say. You're going to be immune to reason.

Then again, prove me wrong. Write as plainly as you can what scientists mean when they talk about the theory of evolution. Not what your preacher said, what the scientists say. What actually is the theory of evolution?