N3v3r3nding_N3wb

Thank you, I've done it and changed my links.

I have been tasked with creating 3 parts lists for my computer class. We plan on using the rough design attached (it's the logo of my school). A raised, open glass will cover a piece of steel or carbon or maybe wood (we haven't decided yet, we're still talking to other classes about materials). I have completed those three part lists and I believe that I've included everything and made smart decisions, but I have precisely zero experience with watercooling, so I figured I'd ask you kind folks to help look the lists over and make sure I've not forgotten anything or done something stupid. I've stayed away from mixing metals; all my watercooled parts are either copper or nickel-plated copper. I've also kept all the fittings to G1/4" because that seems like the standard and is what most things came in. We plan on overclocking the CPU and GPU, and, from what I read, those motherboards were average overclockers for their price points. Thank you in advance to anyone reading or helping, and if I've forgotten to include something here or on the lists please let me know. Most expensive -- https://pcpartpicker.com/user/N3v3r3nding_N3wb/saved/TDzZRB Middle -- https://pcpartpicker.com/user/N3v3r3nding_N3wb/saved/svp3bv Least expensive -- https://pcpartpicker.com/list/LXTnNQ Wall PC Design.pdf

Well, I'd planned on buying GTA V at some point, but they lost my money now.

Wait! Holy shit! You believe that there are uncorruptable scientific facts while simultaneously believing that the Safe Schools Coalition and their agenda is okay? Now I'm glad I didn't take Twain's wisdom! I would've missed out on this gem of complete idiocy and hypocrisy. http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/safe-schools-coalition/ https://youtu.be/GpOYq5en1zA (warning: offensive; Suit is a bit of an ass) https://youtu.be/xH0V-AnnnRw https://youtu.be/w1wHfu1aYu8 (not specifically Safe Schools-related, but on the same general topic) https://youtu.be/_L0Yty-wj_8 "Resources for school staff We have a range of high quality resources which help school staff to respond to homophobic and transphobic behaviour and actively support and include gender diversity, intersex and sexual diversity in school communities (http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au/what-we-do)" They actively support, by their own admission, encouraging gender and sexual diversity as well as intersex children. There's a reason that children can't have sex until a certain age -- they're not mature enough to make a well thought-out decision. It is (or should be) the same for transitioning genders -- that's an even more life-altering and permanent of a change. Encouraging that behavior is an egregious overstepping of any sort of moral responsibility and is scientifically preposterous. These next links are general responses to the multitudinous gender crap and some explanation of why the SJW view is BS. https://youtu.be/OFpYj0E-yb4 https://youtu.be/SiijS_9hPkM https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/no-time-2-genders-actually/ (yes, I'm linking him; shoot me) https://youtu.be/v7NYWd7p-zE The scientific support for lots of genders is extremely dubious at best (and are all based in psychology and the social sciences, not any science that can yield undisputable evidence (yes, those can sometimes yield such evidence, but in this and most cases they don't)), and the idea that children should be exposed to these ideas is absurd and troubling. Even exposing teenagers to this idea is worrying because they're going through an extremely tumultuous time in their life and are looking for ways to rebel against their parents. Introducing them to this will give them a fantastic tool to do just that, but they lack the foresight to see how it might affect them later. Hint: statistically speaking, they're likely to end up killing themselves. Anyone who supports that is either a complete moron and a puppet idealogue or is only interested in pushing our society past the breaking point with destructive ideologies.

No, I was trusting you to figure it out yourself, but that obviously is not gonna happen. That is clear, obvious evidence that the Safe Schools Coalition Australia is supported and funded by the Australian government. Unless you wanna tell me that even though they fund and support Safe Schools, they don't really agree with what Safe Schools is doing, that is clear, undeniable evidence that people with venemous ideologies and a knack for ignoring reality have infiltrated your government and set up an organization to help perpetuate their lies by indoctrinating children and the weak-minded. If that isn't corruption, nothing is.

If we ever got into a war with Russia or China, we could completely destroy any infrastructure connected to the cloud. That would make it surprisingly easy to handicap an enemy that would be otherwise very difficult to destroy.

"The Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA) is the first national program funded by the Australian Government (https://www.education.gov.au/safe-schools-coalition-australia)..."

Right, the ideals of freedom and liberty and resisting tyranny. How awful of me! Also, I even admitted that I might be wrong (Page 4, I believe), but that you haven't given me a reason to think so. Well, it definitely seems that neither of us'll be backing down, and y'know what Mark Twain said.

Look, yes, I do have quite the "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to the government. It is not unfounded, however. The government is not and has not been "by the people, for the people" in basically any country for a very, very long time. The Patriot Act, the EU, the UK government's reluctance to follow through with Brexit, mass immigration, globalization, the pushing of social justice, Canada's Bill C16 (which was passed just over 2 weeks ago), genocides (not in the West, but I said governments broadly, so I might as well include something that the West doesn't really do), lies, spying, secrecy, getting the MSM to spew whatever message they want them to (control of the media), etc., etc., etc. The thing that is wrong with this discussion is your belief that the government will be anything but underhanded and treacherous, not my belief that the government would use this as another tool to censor people. Sadly, the West is advancing ever towards authoritarianism, and unless we really get our shit together and force the government to listen, well, there will be no one left to speak for us. Yes, it is a government corruption issue. The fact that they're allowed to teach their curriculum IN SCHOOLS, and, further, to CHILDREN is appalling. The fact that they haven't been stopped by the government shows how far the SJWs' tentacles have penetrated (side note, no I'm not saying they should be silenced, I'm saying that they shouldn't be supported by schools and, by extension, the government; if they wanna scream their message, hold rallies, etc. let them, but don't support them in schools).

Who the fuck would be making the laws, then? It can't just be some rando-pando organization. The government has to give the go-ahead, at the absolute least, and since we live in a republic, well, multitudinous politicians would be involved, which would introduce the aforementioned corruption. That's assuming that the organization is self-sustaining, or at least mostly so (which is unlikely considering they're not making any products); if they're not a completely separate, self-sustaining organization, they're tied to whoever/whatever gives them funding, and serve that person/group above anyone else because they're out of work if they don't. Science in the truest, purest form doesn't work that way, but this wouldn't be the truest, purest form. I'm not saying that it'll be applied retrospectively. I don't know how you could've gotten that from what I said. I'm saying that this law will change relatively often; how do you compensate those who were wrongly imprisoned, and is potentially saving the lives of, by a ridiculous overestimation, roughly .00037% of the population (in the U.S.'s case; they were the best numbers I could find in a short timespan, and only including deaths that are preventable by vaccinations, and this law wouldn't help those without the money to get them, etc., although not a whole lot of people die from home remedies, either, so these numbers are probably still an overestimation if those were included) worth adding a new governmental organization and jeopardizing the freedom of speech of the entirety of the population, as well as guaranteedly ruining the lives of a few people who ended up being correct? I know what they are; I'm saying that they'll be corrupted. I'm saying this because there's no way to introduce this without making it political or making the burden of truth so heavy that barely anything gets done, defeating the purpose of the law. Given enough effort and time, anything can become an "indisputable fact (so you don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that it'll necessarily be true, but it can be controlled to the point of expressing a different belief jeopardizes your safety, and is therefore almost entirely unspoken; i.e. the belief that transtrenders don't have to be referred to by their preferred pronoun could be silenced based on psychological health studies ("studies" plural; there are many of them, however biased lots of them may be))." [1] You're right; they don't right now, but any lawmaking body would have to be a governmental organization, and specifically be part of Congress/Parliament/equivalent, which would give them the power to do just that. [2] Right, because our law system is void of corruption. That's definitely proven by the fact that almost all cases against Trump and his policies just happen to land in the hands of judges with previous vendettas or fundamental ideological differences; I'm sure those were just happy accidents (note that I can't speak on Australia's law system, though the safe schools bullshit that is allowed to go through indicates to me that it's about as bad as the U.S.'s; nor can I speak on the UK's, but their bias towards Islamic immigrants indicates to me that they're also about as bad as the U.S.). [3] No, I'm saying that they're well on their way and that this would just be another, very powerful, tool that they'd be able to use. The goal of governments is to increase their power. To have evidence of their willingness to censor, we must look only at hate speech codes, but we can also look at the discussion around Muslim immigration, we can look at the ever-tightening restrictions on porn (in the UK especially, but also now in the U.S.), and many other things. The only reason that there isn't mainstream public outrage about this is that the sheeple listen to the MSM, who tell them that what the government is doing is righteous and just and keep their attention focused on the ever-widening race divide, on hating Trump, etc, and because they simply don't take an interest in their rights as long as it's only affecting others (look up the poem "First They Came...").

You are defending yourself on an ever-shrinking foothold. Whether you just haven't had time to respond to the rest or you simply don't have a rebuttal, I don't know, but I think that it's pretty showing as to how weak your position is if it's the latter. [1]I already explained why it's different. It seems that you only read the introduction to my explanation of why it's a false parallel. I will reiterate myself, however. It is different because the financial law doesn't give the government the power to decide what is scientific truth. That is obviously a ridiculous escalation in government powers and will almost definitely be abused because humans are human (it's pretty self-evident that most of us serve ourselves first and give roughly zero fucks about how our actions affect others, as long as that action will be beneficial to us; that observation is especially true with politicians). [2] Obviously, that's how the law would change; I was concerned with the prosecuting method and the fact that it'd be extremely difficult to prosecute effectively and successfully without making the punishment for infraction pretty ridiculous. [3] There really isn't when you look at it from an angle of faith in humanity. When you look at it realistically, however, there are way worse implications that you seem unable to see. I've structured everything that I've said to try to show you that this would only work theoretically. In reality, like socialism, communism, et cetera, this would be corrupted and destroyed by humanity -- give someone or a group of people control over truth and they abuse it, as has been shown in all autocracies that claim to know the answer to any fundamental truth and which has also been shown by most religions (Inquisition, cult of Pythagoras, crusades (on both sides), etc.). Going back to my unnumbered question, why'd you only answer my first question?

I am done.

I definitely should've made what I was directing each point at much clearer, and for that I apologize, let me do that now. Soon, my post'll be edited, and that is what I mean to say.

Just so that I'm clear on your stance, do you think that there are less women than men in IT because of industry-wide discrimination against women?

#smurfpower #smurfmasterrace

[1]Sure, maybe not all them have, but some have -- one group in particular, the oft-cited hate speech laws. They have made it possible to create the ridiculous and despicable civil rights tribunals in Canada, bill C16, and the blasphemy law (that one hasn't passed yet, but it does have strong support). Also, in lots, even most, of European countries, people are prosecuted or at least harassed by the state for speaking out against Islam and/or mass immigration. In the U.S., while it hasn't been widely introduced into law yet, on college campuses, in schools, etc., there are ridiculous and nebulous anti-hate speech laws that are used to silence the opposition and to threaten people with whole manners of things. Online -- YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google searches, etc. -- are all actively silencing and handicapping conservatives, right wingers, classical liberals, anyone who disagrees with their policies, all in the name of the hate speech laws. This goes to show that adding more power to the government's ability to censor is an awful idea, even if it's (supposedly) predicated on good intentions (stopping people from being hateful). Another such law set is the anti-terrorism laws. They are aimed at stopping terrorism, but instead are used to invade citizens' privacy and have undeniably infringed on personal liberty. Yet another example is the gun control laws. They're aimed at reducing gun crime, but instead decrease the safety of the non-criminal citizenry. All of these show examples of laws that were supposed to do a very specific thing, and instead have failed spectacularly and now just make the citizenry less vulnerable. That is reason enough to not enact what you suggest -- I'd rather risk a few morons and their children than the rights of most or all citizens. [2]Concerning the scientific consensus, even if you are forced to read all the available studies before you're allowed to participate in the decision, people will still be biased and argue for what they want to believe. There'll still be corruption, there'll still be massive problems; again, you're looking at this through a very idealistic lens. [This is an aside about why your "best" comparison is a faulty one; it now quotes your most relevant post, as well] Your comparison to the financial advice laws is a faulty parallel because those laws only restrict people from saying certain things that may be detrimental to others (still egregious in my mind, but not as bad as you're proposing), while this would essentially give a small number of people the power to be the sole arbiters of what is deemed scientific fact and truth. [3]That last sentence also presents another problem: what will happen when a law is made, then our understanding of the issue evolves and we've wrongly imprisoned/fined people? How do you go about compensating them for potentially ruining their entire future? How would we deal with the relative frequency of this compared to other crimes? Which specific arguments are off-base and/or nonsensical? I'm open to being wrong, but so far you have not provided me with any reason to make me think that I might be.

Well, on this side of the pond, it's as I described, as long as you have a decent lawyer. I'm confused by this sentence; are you suggesting that the oppression of civil liberties is occasionally good, in some cases (I'm not being a smartass, I really don't understand what you meant by your third sentence)? Evidence is very often faked, and the sciences aren't exempt from corruption, confirmation bias, or anything of the sort. Y'know the Paris climate conference last year or the year before? It was convened because of a particularly alarming study that was later proven to be faked. Also remember that it used to be a consensus among the scientific community that black people were inferior to whites. Have you ever heard of the Cult of Pythagoras? They murdered someone for destroying their world view (https://esoterx.com/2014/12/03/murder-by-math-the-irrational-demise-of-hippasus/). I could go on and on, and I bring up these examples to show that even if the scientific community agrees on something, it's not necessarily true.

Ah, no, it's only illegal for the company itself. Joe Schmoe can misrepresent to his heart's content, even if he has a vested interest in the company's well-being. As long as he doesn't suggest that you buy or invest into that company, he doesn't even have to state that he has a stake in the company. Scientific fact is not as solid as you think. New discoveries are constantly made and there will always be opposing studies, no matter how concrete something looks.

Again, in a perfect world I might agree with you, but we live in the world we do, which is far from perfect. In this world, what you propose would essentially give governments freedom to decide what's truth. Evidence can be faked, and as is abundantly clear by the smear campaign against Trump, if you tell people something loudly and frequently enough, most of them believe it. Well, I actually don't agree with those laws. I like how we do it in the U.S.: 'tis legal as long as you make it clear that you stand to profit on your advice. Well, using "hate" to describe that doesn't really fit the word's definition, but I guess you do you. The problem with that is that it can be applied to more than healthcare. Hell, using your definition we could go back to a patriarchy because as women have gotten more and more social equality (and as they have surpassed men's rights, but that's a different discussion), women have become demonstrably more depressed and way more likely to commit suicide. Y'see why your proposed policy would be bad if applied to the real world? It's just like republics, socialism, and most other forms of government: perfect on paper, but when applied to real life, human nature gets in the way and screws it all up.

The only problem with that is that we're dealing with humans. We lie, make up statistics, etc. to suit our cause. We also hate authority and have a natural tendency to say things that are seen as taboo and/or are banned. Banning things like that just seems to prove their credence (i.e. "the government is colluding with x industry" "those damned corrupt politicians are in the pocket of x person/company/industry").

I will be the first to say that I have very extremely limited personal experience with depression, as I have always had the mental toughness and rationality to deal with whatever life throws at me without spiraling into depression (not anything against those with depression; I'm aware that in the overwhelming majority of depression cases, it's not necessarily the fault of the person and is uncontrollable, I'm just giving limited background on why I've never experienced depression). With that said, one of my brothers and my mother both suffer from occasional bouts of depression (my brother to the point of self-harm and almost attempting suicide). Now, with that said, you can't coddle someone who's depressed, as they're still a human being who should be able to make his/her own choices. With that freedom comes the responsibility of discerning for yourself what you should or shouldn't buy, and as long as Facebook and their ad slot purchasers aren't lying about their products, they can advertise to whomever they please with any targeting method they please, as long as it doesn't breach personal privacy. And, when you post anything on social media, you instantly forfeit your privacy on the thoughts you just expressed, which gives Facebook the right to structure ad campaigns around it.

Oh, look! Someone who's commenting on something that he doesn't understand! He isn't part of the establishment. He's anti-establishment. And, in that short time, they've made sure to really capitalize on their victories by making it nearly impossible for them to lose an election by introducing massive propaganda arms and importing a voting block that'll vote for bigger and bigger government (the modem left). They also have begun to limit free speech and the UK is basically a police state now. This makes them the modern political establishment. Sorry, mods, I know that politics are banned, but this uneducated stupidity needs to be countered. Bullshit ignored is bullshit spread. OT: I actually have no problem with Facebook doing this. If people are stupid enough to project their depression across the world, Facebook is under no obligation to not target them with ads relating to their emotional state. It's not exploitation -- just because they're sad doesn't mean that they're unable to make purchasing decisions, just like they can still buy things when they're drunk, high, et cetera.

I normally say, "Google it," even though DuckDuckGo is my primary search engine.

On an ever-so-slightly more serious note,

I don't know; spy on their own citizens, eternally extend government powers, find new and better ways to make propaganda. The list goes on and on. The government isn't your friend, and it sure as hell doesn't have your best interests at heart. The threat of terrorism and other external threats are just used to extend the powers of the state. That's how it's always been and always will be (i.e. Hitler, the U.S., Lenin and Stalin, the Roman Empire...).