@morbiuswilters said:
Actually, I'm the guy who wrote the code to generate Obama's fake birth certificate.No, we just made you think you were. In fact that was the auto-calibration software for a baby-grater powered by burning puppies.
@morbiuswilters said:
Actually, I'm the guy who wrote the code to generate Obama's fake birth certificate.No, we just made you think you were. In fact that was the auto-calibration software for a baby-grater powered by burning puppies.
@blakeyrat said:
The W3C may consider it a "special case", but then again they consider having text in columns a special case, so they're obviously off their rocker and don't know shit about the web as she is spoke.The W3C consider actual practical implementation of theory to be a special case. Bear in mind that they seem you much the same way a particularly elitist pure mathematician sees a bookkeeper.
@morbiuswilters said:
If your local zoo doesn't have aardvarks@Tim Vine said:
So I rang up my local swimming baths. I said 'Is that the local swimming baths?' He said 'It depends where you're calling from.'
@lettucemode said:
Do you not know who this is? This is fterfi secure; the number of injunctions against his wang are legendary.Deity that name looks weird. And over 100 posts. Time to change.
@Sutherlands said:
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?@fterfi secure said:
Why should an omnipotent being do so, though, instead of giving us all what we want so we have no reason to steal?Because then we'd all become selfish, entitled twats.
Since when do people want what's good for them?
I assumed that you'd be able to fill in the missing logical steps there yourself, but perhaps not. The point is that any answers to the rhetorical question beg further questions which lead to the conclusion that each action must be justified individually. Which is my point. Do you have to justify yourself to yourself, or to some other being?
@nonpartisan said:
All I can speak to on this is that, if there is no God, then there have been an amazing number of coincidences in my life.I really don't have an opinion on whether or not there is a god. I can't see that it matters, so I've stopped worrying.
@nonpartisan said:
I believe my faith and my belief are the right way, but if you don't, that's really not my issueIt's not the issue I'm interested in, either. If god doesn't believe your faith and belief are the right way, what would you do? Would you change anything about the way you live?@nonpartisan said:
But the only real argument I can give would be: what if you're wrong?That's the bit I added about how one should be able to justify every action. If I did something wrong, but which was justifiable in the circumstances, with the knowledge and skills I had available, then I'd question why an omnipotent god left me in that situation, rather than allowing him/her/it to judge me.
What if god's wrong, in my opinion?
@boomzilla said:
@fterfi secure said:Well, isn't it giving into bullying? What's the difference?@boomzilla said:You mean none of them ever brought up what happens to you after you die?
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.So, what you meant to ask was, "Can you guess any reason that would make a difference that I already agree with?" To which the only answer is, "You're a fucking moron who is convinced that he is right and that nothing else matters." Why did you even bother asking the question?
@lettucemode said:
@fterfi secure said:Is the state omnipotent? There are reasons why the state should, for example, prevent stealing. Why should an omnipotent being do so, though, instead of giving us all what we want so we have no reason to steal?They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.Think of it from a theists' point of view: Would you consider being arrested for breaking the law "giving into bullying"?
@frits said:
How will the current flow? You're the 'physics guy'. Surely there must be some sort of force we can apply to make current happen. What is the relationship between that force and the current?What are you trying to say there? That I'm suggesting voltage is unimportant? I'm not. I thought it would be relatively uncontentious to point out that in practical terms there is no safety difference between 110v and 230v. Evidently not.
@blakeyrat said:
@fterfi secure said:Oh, well done. There hasn't been enough one-black-swan pedantic dickweedery around here lately.Oh, and one more thing, which applies to everyone: why the blithering fuck do we all start on the hour?Who's "everyone"? Get a new job if yours sucks. I definitely don't start at any specific prescribed time.
@blakeyrat said:
My bus comes every half hour. I can only assume you're talking about driving hereNo, I'm just assuming that you're not one of the unfortunate 5% of the world's population who live in the USA and therefore have no public transport to speak of, or that you drive to work. You're, what, one of the three people in the USA who doesn't drive to work - including the POTUS? Congratulations, have another black-swan award.@blakeyrat said:
Then get a job if your job is full of clock-watchers.These days, it's not an issue for me. It only affects 99% of other workers, though, so that's no reason to mention it.
@boomzilla said:
@fterfi secure said:They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.More seriously, though, I've yet to meet even a hard-core religionist/atheist who could explain to me what the fuck difference it makes to anything whether or not god exists.You mean none of them ever brought up what happens to you after you die?
Oh, I should add that this all assumes that one believes that people should be able to justify their own actions.
@dhromed said:
I was going to quote little bits, but really I disagree with that in much more fundamental ways.@morbiuswilters said:
I've worked 90 hour weeks for months on end.Are you guys really such delicate little flowers?I think the only reason some people are capable of working 90 hours a week is because:
A) They're really passionate about the job. I know plenty of artists whose creed might as well be "Sleep? What is it? I must draw!"
B) or "being disciplined" as a concept is, to them, a fun activity in and of itself, regardless of the actual job.I think you're in category B, morbs, because there's absolutely no way someone can be 90-hour passionate about IT. The field is not that difficult, or rich with unexplored, exiting territory.
I get tired after 8 hours. Or rather, I get tired after a semi-continuous block of 8 hours, with a 20-30 minute lunch break in between. I often regain some energy at night, after having come home and eaten a good meal. I could theoretically work more from 20:00 to 23:00, and add a few hours on weekends.
But hey.
Guess what.
I also have other stuff I want to do with my life.
You wish to work 90 hours? You love doing the job? You have the mental fortitude to keep it up? That's fine. But don't look down on everyone else for trying to work reasonable hours. With that post above, you're adequately demonstrated that you're the worst possible person to set a norm to.
As a great example of where I stand: I'm taking music lessons in a few weeks again, and since the timetable of the lessons slightly overlaps with my work hours, I am going to move the work hours.
For me, length of time worked isn't a competitive measure of 'dedication' or some bollocks like that. There's a hard limit on how long you can do good work for, simple as that. It varies slightly from person to person, but 40 hours is a maximum amount of work in a week that allows people enough rest to do any of their best work - on an ongoing basis. Sure, I've done over a hundred hours in a week before - I think my record is probably 130+ - but I haven't done it repeatedly. My rule of thumb is that any hours worked over forty require two hours back to rest.
To me, it doesn't matter if I enjoy the work - in fact, I rarely enjoy things that aren't challenging, but challenging things require a lot more thinking and so are more tiring. If I get home after an easy ten hour day, I can still play a game of chess, but if I get home after doing just a few hours of proper thinking I'll be a zombie.
@frits said:
I'll let you contemplate the implications of this simple formula: P = V^2/RAnd is current directly proportional to damage to the body? (Hint: it's not. That's where the squared term comes back in.)
The important factor here is actually power dissipated, and that's mainly down to time spent in the circuit. You have to hold onto either 230v or 110v for a good long time to do any real damage in most cases.
I'm starting to wonder whether I was the only person to do any kind of high-school physics dealing with electricity. Surely everyone knows that (in general) current kills whilst voltage doesn't? Surely you all know that the 'static' shock you get earthing yourself after walking on a nylon carpet is in the tens of thousands of volts?