The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
@topspin "Two lines of code" in a language like COBOL is the equivalent of closing your hand before raising it to your mouth to cover up when clearing your throat (actually clearing the throat would equate to fifteen or sixteen lines of code).
"Two lines of code" in something like Forth or APL is like the complete works of Shakespeare and Tolstoy combined.
-
@da-Doctah Can you actually do anything in only 2 lines of COBOL?
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Dragoon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gustav said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Yeah, sure.
Hey, it can happen. The other day I wrote 2 entire lines of code and had no compiler errors.
My favorite Raymond Chen quote:
I wrote two lines of code yesterday.
They were both wrong.
I decompiled two lines of code.
I screeched.
-
-
-
Just put a sock in it, willya?
-
@Dragoon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Hey, it can happen. The other day I wrote 2 entire lines of code and had no compiler errors.
10 PRINT "Hello world" 20 GOTO 10
-
-
@boomzilla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I have two problems with that image. It appears to bring the northbound and southbound vehicles into a confrontation at the top of the loop. And a simple "Dukes of Hazzard" jump would be much quicker and cheaper to implement.
-
-
-
Have I not posted this yet? I thought I had posted this…
Made it.
7 plants, 8 if I count the potatoes.
-
This is how the dinosaurs went extinct, according to Flat Earthers:
-
@Rhywden said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
This is how the dinosaurs went extinct, according to Flat Earthers:
Really hard to tell poe from noe.
-
-
-
-
-
@boomzilla Looking at her first sentence that she is worried he wants to sacrifice her at Stonehenge, I can put her mind at ease. No need to worry, he does want to.
-
-
-
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Filed under: A metric shitton of roses
My wife being one of them mexicans with a bit of african in the family tree, she has a glorious and large ass. And she asked me this question once, and I just gave her the:
She laughed and hasn't asked me again.
-
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
glorious and large ass.
I hear that makes delivery easier. Is it true?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
glorious and large ass.
I hear that makes delivery easier. Is it true?
That'd be wide hips. And I have no idea, I've never tried having children, nevermind wide or narrow hips.
-
-
-
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
There is a very famous koan in Zen Buddhism. Rather than paraphrase it, I'll paste here a version I found on the web:
*A monk asked Joshu, a Chinese Zen master:
Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?' Joshu answered:
Mu.' [Mu is the negative symbol in Chinese, meaningNo-thing' or
Nay'.]Mumon's comment:s To realize Zen one has to pass through the barrier of the patriachs. Enlightenment always comes after the road of thinking is blocked. If you do not pass the barrier of the patriachs or if your thinking road is not blocked, whatever you think, whatever you do, is like a tangling ghost. You may ask: What is a barrier of a patriach? This one word, Mu, is it.
This is the barrier of Zen. If you pass through it you will see Joshu face to face. Then you can work hand in hand with the whole line of patriachs. Is this not a pleasant thing to do?
If you want to pass this barrier, you must work through every bone in your body, through ever pore in your skin, filled with this question: What is Mu? and carry it day and night. Do not believe it is the common negative symbol meaning nothing. It is not nothingness, the opposite of existence. If you really want to pass this barrier, you should feel like drinking a hot iron ball that you can neither swallor nor spit out.
Then your previous lesser knowledge disappears. As a fruit ripening in season, your subjectivity and objectivity naturally become one. It is like a dumb man who has had a dream. He knows about it but cannot tell it.
When he enters this condition his ego-shell is crushed and he can shake the heaven and move the earth. He is like a great warrior with a sharp sword. If a Buddha stands in his way, he will cut him down; if a patriach offers him any obstacle, he will kill him; and he will be free in this way of birth and death. He can enter any world as if it were his own playground. I will tell you how to do this with this koan:
Just concentrate your whole energy into this Mu, and do not allow any discontinuation. When you enter this Mu and there is no discontinuation, your attainment will be as a candle burning and illuminating the whole universe.
Has a dog Buddha-nature?
This is the most serious question of all.
If you say yes or no,
You lose your own Buddha-nature.*So, you might think, this is exactly the way to proceed when asked a question to which either answer is unacceptable. The wife asks "Does this dress make my ass look big?"
Trust me. Do not answer "Mu".
(Edit: what the hell is up with the formatting today?)
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Mu.
-
@Carnage Thanks for clarifying that. I was trying to figure out how those dimensions would make delivery of the input parameters easier and was failing.
-
@da-Doctah Whenever I hear or see about this koan, I cannot help pointing out that the correct answer to the question is simply, "No", or "Mu" ("Bu" in the original Chinese, which sounds like the barking of a dog). Nothing mystical about it, there is no Buddha-nature, tathagatagarba, because the Buddha did not teach it, it was a concept invented many centuries later. He simply taught, "Not self", anatta.
One cannot lose something that never existed.
</sermon>
-
-
@dcon That whole continent is full of convicts! Even the wildlife! No wonder it wants to kill you.
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler You do realize making it flatter means it’s easier to eat it, right? McD is doing you a service!
-
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It's the Pepsi Jet all over again.
TIL.
"The plaintiff, John Leonard, discovered a loophole in the promotion, allowing him to purchase Pepsi Points at 10¢ per point. Leonard promptly delivered a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo, attempting to purchase the jet. "
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It's the Pepsi Jet all over again.
TIL.
"The plaintiff, John Leonard, discovered a loophole in the promotion, allowing him to purchase Pepsi Points at 10¢ per point. Leonard promptly delivered a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo, attempting to purchase the jet. "
There's a miniseries on Netflix about it. Apparently originally they wanted to put a really large number like 7 Billion points or something but someone changed it to 7M because it looked better on screen.
-
@dangeRuss In my business law class, one of the first cases we studied was where this guy at a bar sold his farm to another guy for $10, which was an absurdly low price. The seller even had a short discussion with one of his buddies out of sight of the buyer where he laughed that "This guy thinks he's buying my farm for $10!"
After the exchange, the buyer said to the seller, "I just bought your farm".
In court, the sale was ruled invalid, but upon appeal the initial verdict was overturned and the sale was upheld. The prof in my class marveled that the first judge knew nothing about the law on this.
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
The prof in my class marveled that the first judge knew nothing about the law on this.
The fact that someone has managed to obtain a judgeship is not proof that he/she has intelligence, wisdom, knowledge or common sense. One hopes he/she has all of those qualities, but sometimes one is disappointed.
-
@HardwareGeek Common sense did not apply here. Common sense might say that the sale was invalid, because $10 was obviously too low. This was what the first judge did, which is not the law, thus it was overturned on appeal.
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@HardwareGeek Common sense did not apply here. Common sense might say that the sale was invalid, because $10 was obviously too low. This was what the first judge did, which is not the law, thus it was overturned on appeal.
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Common sense did not apply here.
It often doesn't apply to the legal system.
-
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
In recent years, due to feminism, the idea that a person is unable to consent due to voluntary intoxication has arisen.
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
In recent years, due to feminism, the idea that a person is unable to consent due to voluntary intoxication has arisen.
Yes, but the evidence of the other people (as discussed above) makes that moot. The seller was not sufficiently buzzed to have lost all powers of judgement.
However... the buyer should be taxed on the gain he makes when selling the land. Which will be the full value of the land less $10.
-
@dkf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
However... the buyer should be taxed on the gain he makes when selling the land. Which will be the full value of the land less $10.
And perhaps he was. That would not have been part of the case. I seem to remember (perhaps incorrectly) that the capital gains tax is a relatively recent innovation. The case might be from the 1950's.
-
@dkf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
In recent years, due to feminism, the idea that a person is unable to consent due to voluntary intoxication has arisen.
Yes, but the evidence of the other people (as discussed above) makes that moot. The seller was not sufficiently buzzed to have lost all powers of judgement.
The evidence of the other people is superfluous. The phrase "a bit buzzed" used above made this clear.
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I seem to remember (perhaps incorrectly) that the capital gains tax is a relatively recent innovation.
AFAIK, they've always been taxable. It's just a question of whether they get special treatment or are just part of your ordinary income.
-
@dkf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
In recent years, due to feminism, the idea that a person is unable to consent due to voluntary intoxication has arisen.
Yes, but the evidence of the other people (as discussed above) makes that moot. The seller was not sufficiently buzzed to have lost all powers of judgement.
However... the buyer should be taxed on the gain he makes when selling the land. Which will be the full value of the land less $10.
If he sells the land and does not turn around and get a bigger land
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dkf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
In recent years, due to feminism, the idea that a person is unable to consent due to voluntary intoxication has arisen.
Yes, but the evidence of the other people (as discussed above) makes that moot. The seller was not sufficiently buzzed to have lost all powers of judgement.
However... the buyer should be taxed on the gain he makes when selling the land. Which will be the full value of the land less $10.
If he sells the land and does not turn around and get a bigger land
Unless land is special, that rule went away several decades ago.
-
Funny stuff!