Your computer needs to sleep too



  • While doing some 'market research' on local PC repair shops, I came across this gem in the FAQ of one's web site...not including the URL because I don't want to be behind another Mellatech repeat (I kind of felt bad for the guy)...although I guess it's pretty easy to find on Google.

    Should I leave my computer on at night?
    Absolutely not! Windows needs to refresh the computer RAM (Random Access Memory) by clearing the Memory to make it available for use by the computer. If you reboot you free up the Memory allowing Windows to reallocate it. Windows is a lousy Memory manager so you need to turn your computer off at night or for several hours each day. If you never turn your computer off, it will slow down more and more until it locks up. Also, leaving a computer and monitor on will use a lot of electricity and it is like anything else electronic in that the longer it is on, the sooner something will eventually burn out.

    As a bonus, they seem to be a bit confused about hibernation mode too...

    What does it mean when my computer goes into hibernation mode?
    When a computer goes into hibernation mode it can be a problem for many people. If hibernation is enabled, after a certain period of time your computer will go into a lower inactive state called hibernation. That may sound advantageous on paper, but in practice it can cause system freeze ups and the inability to bring your computer out of hibernation (usually done by moving the mouse or pressing the space bar). If your computer does not return to its normal operating state, then often your wireless (or wired) connection will be disabled and other programs or functions may not work properly. To remedy this you may have to restart your computer. When we do a tune-up we always disable hibernation (on a desktop PC) unless our client tells us not to do so. notebooks we handle differently so call us if you are unsure of what to do with regard to hibernation.

    And finally, I wish MS would stop including those damn files whose only purpose is to break your computer...

    What are temporary Internet files and how do they affect my computer?
    Temporary Internet files are files that can slow down or block Internet access and connectivity. They accumulate on your computer like cookies do.


  • I love how googleing strings from the OP hides the actual site under "omitted results".



  •  Probably is the only way to talk to most users.  Translations:

    Should I leave my computer on at night?
    No.  Your computer is riddled with viruses and botnets.  You're spending all night spamming us.

    What about hybernation mode?
    I haven't had problems with it lately, but I saw a lot in the late 90s when Windows 95 and/or poorly programmed apps didn't wake up properly.  I'll just go ahead and tell people to disable it to avoid any remotely possible conflicts.  Besides, their botnets can't send spam while they're hibernating.

    What are temporary internet files?
    You're asking because of porn, aren't you?  Yes, go ahead and delete them.



  •  Even Better

     

    Merchants We Recommend

    We are currently updating this list.  Please check back in a few weeks for updates.



    Papadimoulis Motors

    • Automotive Repair and Service plus quality pre-owned vehicles. At Papadimoulis Motors you get the personalized service you deserve at a price
      that you can afford.


      Sweet Tarts by MagentaCo - Home made specialty candles and tarts with dozens of styles and scents at great prices and courteous service.

     

    (names obviously changed) 

    </p><p>Do you think these companies PAID for this? <br></p><p class="style5">
           </p><p>&nbsp;</p>


  • @crazy said:

    Why am I getting pop-ups when I go on the Internet?
    If you are getting pop-ups or you are redirected to sites other than the ones you’ve selected, then you either have spyware that is controlling Internet Explorer or you have some other malicious software that installed itself on your computer.
    All popups are malware, mkay?@crazy said:
    We don’t think it is good business for you have to pay someone every time you have a small problem with your computer.
    Aha! Now I understand. "I got popups, I wonder if it's bad ... OMG, it's terrible, I must take it in and pay for repair!".



  •  I love the cautionary message at the top of the page:

    "Don’t do things you aren’t capable of doing or things that will make your problem even worse"

    Why would I do something I'm not capable of doing? and secondly, why would I do something that I know will make my problem even worse?



  • @Mole said:

     I love the cautionary message at the top of the page:

    "Don’t do things you aren’t capable of doing or things that will make your problem even worse"

    Why would I do something I'm not capable of doing?

    More importantly, how would you do something you're not capable of doing?  I think the warning should say

    Don’t do things you aren’t capable of doing or the Universe will disappear in a logical paradox.

     



  • I couldn't resist peeking, and yes, there is more good advice. Here's the real price of printing photos at home:

    Why shouldn’t I print photos on a regular basis using my printer?

    An
    ink cartridge on average will print about 80 pages of text (high
    capacity cartridges may print double that).  To produce color photos
    using your printer you are essentially swabbing the entire page with
    ink.  This will cause your ink cartridge to empty quickly.  Ink
    cartridges are expensive and the quality of photos reproduced on a
    printer are never as good as photos reproduced on professional
    equipment.  Instead of paying nineteen cents per photo, you could be
    paying more than two dollars per photo if you use large volumes of ink
    from your printer to reproduce them.  If you want photos printed, the
    quality will be better and the cost much less if you take them to any
    local store for processing.



  • O dear Lord. I know not everyone can become a neurosurgeon, but surely every high school teaches some basic physiology?

    What can I do to reduce eye strain and fatigue associated with using my computer for long periods of time?

    Try
    increasing your refresh rate to a setting of 72 Hertz or higher.  At
    less than 72 Hertz your screen display is refreshing at such a slow
    rate that your brain perceives the flicker even if your eyes don’t
    detect it. ...



  • My TFT doesn't support 72Hz, is it broken? Do I need to take it into the shop to have it repaired?



  • The only part that I think is outright wrong is the one about temporary internet files. The other ones are not that far from the truth.



  • Can I speed up my computer inexpensively or must I purchase a new one?
    <bla bla bla> [b]If you add more RAM, often an eight year old PC will start and access files and programs [u]faster[/u] than a brand-new computer.[/b] You will save hundreds, if not a thousand dollars, and you won’t have to deal with transferring all your data to a new PC. Call us for a free price quote on installing more RAM or to determine what impact more RAM would have on the speed of your current PC.

    YEAH! I'm going to put 8GB of RAM in my old athlon thunderbird 1.2ghz and play Crysis all night!



  • That clearly says your old PC will will start and access files and programs faster. It doesn't say anything about running them faster. 

     You'll need to take it in and have the temporary internet files deleted if you want it to go faster. 



  • For some reason I can't stop thinking about swampy when reading these quotes.  Did anyone else get the feeling that this is almost too good not to be an trap?

     

    It's like there is *just enough * incentive for some readers to defend the site based on literal interpretations of their claims, but on first glance most people will probably consider the advice horrible... If we could actually get the gurus running this company to come join our little coummunity for a few threads ... hilarity(?).



  • @Mole said:

    That clearly says your old PC will will start and access files and programs faster. It doesn't say anything about running them faster. 

     You'll need to take it in and have the temporary internet files deleted if you want it to go faster. 

    Yeah... i agree that more ram makes some difference, but comparing an [b]8 year old[/b] computer with a brand-new is a bit of exageration. Maybe with an brand new HD and with a very very clean windows...
    In 2001 i had an 166 mmx, changing it for a pentium 3 650mhz Slot 1 (worst computer EVER!)



  • I remember having one of those slot-based CPUs with the huge freaking wind tunnel attached to them. What the hell Intel were thinking when they brought them out I've no idea. My previous PC had a Cyrix brand processor - 166Mhz I think or something like that - does anyone actually remember those?



  • @DaveK said:

    @Mole said:

     I love the cautionary message at the top of the page:

    "Don’t do things you aren’t capable of doing or things that will make your problem even worse"

    Why would I do something I'm not capable of doing?

    More importantly, how would you do something you're not capable of doing?  I think the warning should say

    Don’t do things you aren’t capable of doing or the Universe will disappear in a logical paradox.

     

    It's not a logical paradox. It's a common problem that (l)users will do things that they only [i]think[/i] they're capable of doing when they really don't have a clue, only making the problem worse. Unfortunately, this warning does nothing to prevent it since, after all, the (l)user thinks s/he [i]is[/i] capable of doing the thing in question.



  • Yes, it is a logical paradox, it would be solved by saying:

    Don't attempt to do things you aren’t sure you're capable of doing.

     

    Actually doing things I can't do would involve me running faster than the speed of light, turn myself arbitrarilly into any animal of my choice and getting Microsoft to release Windows 7 as open source.

    There's your paradox

     

    Mahoro




  • [Quote user="Mahoro"]... turn myself arbitrarilly into any animal of my choice ... [/Quote] You could try multi-classing as a druid.

    Let me know how that works out for you.



  • @TGV said:

    O dear Lord. I know not everyone can become a neurosurgeon, but surely every high school teaches some basic physiology?

    What can I do to reduce eye strain and fatigue associated with using my computer for long periods of time?

    Try
    increasing your refresh rate to a setting of 72 Hertz or higher.  At
    less than 72 Hertz your screen display is refreshing at such a slow
    rate that your brain perceives the flicker even if your eyes don’t
    detect it. ...

    There's nothing wrong with this statement, even though it is awkwardly phrased. It's perfectly true that low refresh rates can cause eyestrain and headaches even if you don't consciously perceive the flicker.



  • @Zylon said:

    @TGV said:

    O dear Lord. I know not everyone can become a neurosurgeon, but surely every high school teaches some basic physiology?

    What can I do to reduce eye strain and fatigue associated with using my computer for long periods of time?

    Try
    increasing your refresh rate to a setting of 72 Hertz or higher.  At
    less than 72 Hertz your screen display is refreshing at such a slow
    rate that your brain perceives the flicker even if your eyes don’t
    detect it. ...

    There's nothing wrong with this statement, even though it is awkwardly phrased. It's perfectly true that low refresh rates can cause eyestrain and headaches even if you don't consciously perceive the flicker.

    Um, how would the brain perceive the flicker if the eyes didn't detect
    it and provide data to the brain?  That's kinda like the trick in movies where they enlarge a very small area of a photo and then magically sharpen it to provide far more detail than hte original could possibly contain.  The situation is the other way
    around - eyes detect the flicker but the brain is too slow to process
    it.  Thus the eyes can get fatigued even if the image seems steady. 
    The peripheral vision areas of the brain is better equipped to detect
    fast motion, so if you look at the monitor from the corner of your eye,
    chances are you'll see the flicker even if you normally don't.  It
    varies from person to person too - I can look at 60 Hz just fine (or
    could, all those years ago when I still had CRTs), but I have a friend
    who complains about anything less than 85 Hz.



  • @tdb said:

    @Zylon said:

    @TGV said:

    O dear Lord. I know not everyone can become a neurosurgeon, but surely every high school teaches some basic physiology?

    What can I do to reduce eye strain and fatigue associated with using my computer for long periods of time?

    Try
    increasing your refresh rate to a setting of 72 Hertz or higher.  At
    less than 72 Hertz your screen display is refreshing at such a slow
    rate that your brain perceives the flicker even if your eyes don’t
    detect it. ...

    There's nothing wrong with this statement, even though it is awkwardly phrased. It's perfectly true that low refresh rates can cause eyestrain and headaches even if you don't consciously perceive the flicker.

    Um, how would the brain perceive the flicker if the eyes didn't detect
    it and provide data to the brain?  That's kinda like the trick in movies where they enlarge a very small area of a photo and then magically sharpen it to provide far more detail than hte original could possibly contain.  The situation is the other way
    around - eyes detect the flicker but the brain is too slow to process
    it.  Thus the eyes can get fatigued even if the image seems steady. 
    The peripheral vision areas of the brain is better equipped to detect
    fast motion, so if you look at the monitor from the corner of your eye,
    chances are you'll see the flicker even if you normally don't.  It
    varies from person to person too - I can look at 60 Hz just fine (or
    could, all those years ago when I still had CRTs), but I have a friend
    who complains about anything less than 85 Hz.

    85Hz is still a tad annoying to me, but 60Hz is positively nausea-inducing.  Especially under fluorescent lights.  Of course, I haven't had to deal with this in many years, ever since LCDs triumphed over CRTs in The Monitor Wars.



  • @tdb said:

    It
    varies from person to person too - I can look at 60 Hz just fine (or
    could, all those years ago when I still had CRTs), but I have a friend
    who complains about anything less than 85 Hz.
    I'm one of such people - 85Hz is the bare minimum if I work on a CRT (and even then I'll limit myself to half hour or so, because my eyes start hurting). Normal TVs are out of the question, too. I was the first one to order a LCD when they became semi-affordable (15" for around 550EUR at the time) - never looked back (and always suffered when I had to work on CRTs afterwards).



  • @ender said:

    Normal TVs are out of the question, too.
     

    That's too bad.

    I personally find 85Hz indistinguishable from LCDs, and 60Hz is okay if not for too long.

    But I'm slow.

     

     



  • @ender said:

    I'm one of such people - 85Hz is the bare minimum if I work on a CRT
     

    Where do you live, Romania?  I haven't even SEEN a CRT in about 5 years, more or less worked on one.



  • @amischiefr said:

    Where do you live, Romania?  I haven't even SEEN a CRT in about 5 years, more or less worked on one.
    We've got a client that's a non-profit organization getting money from national budget, and there's never enough money for hardware (but there's always enough money for maintenance). Otherwise I don't think I saw another CRT in use anywhere recently.



  • @amischiefr said:

    Where do you live, Romania?  I haven't even SEEN a CRT in about 5 years, more or less worked on one.
     

    Picture-wise, CRT is by no means inferior to LCD. It's just that LCD has many other advantages that ensure(d) CRTs demise as an outdated display tool.

    The 1 year old (not calibrated by me) S-IPS I have at work has slightly inferior color quality to the CRT I have at home. It's oversaturated (common for LCD) and drops to full black too quickly. TN panels are always inferior to CRT (doh), except for absent flickr and (obviously) pixel sharpness.

    A little tweaking put my work monitor up to par, though no amount of gamma correction will fix the current gamut. I was the bitch who held out with his 19" Trinitron until it turned unambiguously green and flickery, and only then did I request for a replacement monitor :)



  • @amischiefr said:

    @ender said:

    I'm one of such people - 85Hz is the bare minimum if I work on a CRT
     

    Where do you live, Romania?  I haven't even SEEN a CRT in about 5 years, more or less worked on one.


    I use CRTs because 1) they've got better color, and 2) they handle multiple resolutions better. I've yet to see an LCD that claims it can handle 320x200 properly (hint: it's a 4:3 aspect ratio with non-square pixels).



  • @Carnildo said:

    I use CRTs because 1) they've got better color, and 2) they handle multiple resolutions better. I've yet to see an LCD that claims it can handle 320x200 properly (hint: it's a 4:3 aspect ratio with non-square pixels).
    I don't remember any problems using 320x200 resolution on my old 15" LCD, but I never had any needs for this resolution on larger LCDs.



  • @Carnildo said:

     I use CRTs because 1) they've got better color, and 2) they handle multiple resolutions better. I've yet to see an LCD that claims it can handle 320x200 properly (hint: it's a 4:3 aspect ratio with non-square pixels).

     

    Are you legally blind?  Why on gods green earth would you want a 320x200 resolution unless you couldn't even read the top letter at an eye exam?    Oh and yes, at 320x200 you get WAY better color than at 1300x786, way better.  Cause you know, extra pixels just get in the way of color depth.



  • @amischiefr said:

    @ender said:

    I'm one of such people - 85Hz is the bare minimum if I work on a CRT
     

    Where do you live, Romania?  I haven't even SEEN a CRT in about 5 years, more or less worked on one.

     

    In my row of cubes (10 cubes) I count 17 CRTs and 4 LCDs (ignoring laptops).  Some of the CRTs are very old Sun Microsystem monitors.  I work at a technology company with more than 40,000 employees.



  • @amischiefr said:

    Are you legally blind?  Why on gods green earth would you want a 320x200 resolution unless you couldn't even read the top letter at an eye exam?

    To play vintage games fullscreen!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @amischiefr said:

    Where do you live, Romania?  I haven't even SEEN a CRT in about 5 years, more or less worked on one.
     

    I have four of them on my desk right now. Two 22" Viewsonics, two widescreen 24" Sun Microsystems (built by Sony - so they'e real Trinitrons).I also have two spare 22" Suns lying in wait.

     Of course my desk is extremely heavily reinforced, and I don't actually have room to put anything on top of it, you absolutely, positively can not beat this.

    For starters, I've been through about four LCD displays over the past few years - and I only ever use one at a time. They die. A lot.

    CRTs, however, as long as they aren't moved around and abused a lot, will outlast the human fucking race.

    CRTs handle non-native resolutions flawlessly (because they don't HAVE native resolutions) - LCDs patently do not.

    On a CRT, black is black and white is white (assuming it's set up and calibrated properly) - on an LCD, you're stuck at the absolute limits of the panel itself.

    TN panel LCDs are utterly useless at color representation, and also almost ubiquitous. Only the absolute newest, top-end S-IPS displays are even getting close to full-range.

     

    In general, CRTs are a case of superior technology becoming the victim of aesthetics and eco-friendliness.



  • Weng, despite being a CRT afficionado myself, I'm going to argue against your CRT zealotry.

    @Weng said:

    I have four of them on my desk right now. Two 22" Viewsonics, two widescreen 24" Sun Microsystems (built by Sony - so they'e real Trinitrons).I also have two spare 22" Suns lying in wait.
     

    Unless you're a designer or gametester, with a need for CRT's specific strengths, it's my reasonably informed opinion that you should really convert to flatscreen.

    @Weng said:

    [LCD monitors] die. A lot.

    I don't know what you do with them. Do you work in a hazardous environment?

    @Weng said:

    CRTs, however, as long as they aren't moved around and abused a lot, will outlast the human fucking race.

    The same goes for LCDs. They're roughly equally robust. I can't speak for final LCD longevity, though, but CRTs tend to being degradation after 5 years.Though my CRT at home is still absolutely pristine. I'm certain it will last for years to come.

    @Weng said:

    CRTs handle non-native resolutions flawlessly (because they don't HAVE native resolutions) - LCDs patently do not.

    All to true :).

    @Weng said:

    On a CRT, black is black and white is white (assuming it's set up and calibrated properly) - on an LCD, you're stuck at the absolute limits of the panel itself.

    CRTs are incapable of a true black. They're not even black when they're off, because light shines on the mask, making it lighter than some monitor's black plastic casings. CRTs will always have brighter blacks than decent LCDs (IPS or MVA. TN is crap; we all know it.).

    Whites vary with monitor type brand, make and model. To show: My work LCD can burn out my eyes even in a bright office environment. I keep the bri low; I set my home CRT to 100% bri when I'm watching a movie in the dark

    And then there are the various settings that differ for every model and every environment, which all in all means you can never make any claim about any monitor having "black is black and white is white".

     @Weng said:

    TN panel LCDs are utterly useless at color representation, and also almost ubiquitous. Only the absolute newest, top-end S-IPS displays are even getting close to full-range.

    I'm not too sure. It's true that LCDs are commonly oversaturated, but that's nothing a little videocard settings tweaking won't fix. TN panels usually don't do 24-bit, which makes them crap. My S-IPS does it well.

     Gamma/bri correction is a different thing. I still don't have about 7%of the shadow tones. It's all black.

    @Weng said:

    In general, CRTs are a case of superior technology becoming the victim of aesthetics and eco-friendliness.

     Also of saving space on your desk, and not having flicker issues.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Weng said:
    In general, CRTs are a case of superior technology becoming the victim of aesthetics and eco-friendliness.
    Also of saving space on your desk, and not having flicker issues.
    Not to mention ability to be mounted on the wall or one of those nifty three-armed LCD-mounting devices.  I'll have to find a link later.  However, I'm pretty sure that's what Weng meant by aesthetics. 

    In theory, a CRT television could be mounted on the wall, but you would have to have a pretty sturdy mount, and they don't make CRT TVs much bigger than about 34" which weigh in at about 180 lbs.  By contrast, my 32" LCD weighs a mere 32 lbs.



  • @Weng said:

    CRTs handle non-native resolutions flawlessly (because they don't HAVE native resolutions) - LCDs patently do not.

    Nope. LCD at least handles its native resolution perfectly. CRT doesn't handle ANY resolution perfectly. Good luck trying to adjust convergence and focus and geometry on the whole field with 0.1 mm tolerance.

    And for low legacy resolution: LCD will do vertical resample and will fill the whole field. CRT won't and will show you rarified grid of scans.

     



  • @amischiefr said:

    @Carnildo said:

     I use CRTs because 1) they've got better color, and 2) they handle multiple resolutions better. I've yet to see an LCD that claims it can handle 320x200 properly (hint: it's a 4:3 aspect ratio with non-square pixels).

     

    Are you legally blind?  Why on gods green earth would you want a 320x200 resolution unless you couldn't even read the top letter at an eye exam?    Oh and yes, at 320x200 you get WAY better color than at 1300x786, way better.  Cause you know, extra pixels just get in the way of color depth.

    I take it you've never played older computer games? "Variable resolution" is a very recent phenomenon: most games more than ten years old will only support one or two specific screen sizes. The two standard resolutions for MS-DOS games were 320x200 (CGA, EGA, 256-color VGA) and 640x480 (16-color VGA, SVGA).


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     Wow, I lost it there a bit.

     @dhromed said:

    Unless you're a designer or gametester, with a need for CRT's specific strengths, it's my reasonably informed opinion that you should really convert to flatscreen.

    Cost of these CRT monitors: $0 (These are the advantages of working in electronics recycling)
    Cost of one H-IPS monitor (HP, 24") to replace one of them: $549
    Difference in running costs over the next several years: Way the hell less than $549
    Cost to upgrade the workstation feeding these things to a nice shiny quadcore with a pair of badassed video cards: $800.

     I do spend a fair deal of time running lower-than-optimum resolutions for various reasons (games, having older systems that don't understand super-high resolutions connected, etc.)

     @dhromed said:

    I don't know what you do with them. Do you work in a hazardous environment?

    Heat. Air temperature in my office often gets up to 90F on a warm day - and it's not uncommon for it to exceed 100 in July. That alone kills a lot of equipment (my workstation is presently limping because the chipset is suffering from thermal damage - going to replace the whole thing shortly).

    Amusingly, at my ACTUAL hazardous work environment (the recycling plant from which I saved my monitors) we've had the exact opposite problem - CRTs don't last (though this is primarily a vandalism problem - when you have truckloads [literally - there's an average of 924 on a truck, assuming a 50/50 mix of 15 and 17", stacked properly] of CRT monitors nobody thinks twice about rigging one to short circuit or spraypainting a giant penis on the screen; but when you have to fight for every LCD monitor you get in working condition, they actually get respected)

    @dhromed said:

    CRTs are incapable of a true black. They're not even black when they're off, because light shines on the mask, making it lighter than some monitor's black plastic casings. CRTs will always have brighter blacks than decent LCDs (IPS or MVA. TN is crap; we all know it.).

     I actually hadn't considered that.

    @dhromed said:

    Also of saving space on your desk, and not having flicker issues.
    Desk space: Aesthetics. Flicker issues: I never have problems at home, but I have HUGE problems with it in places with older flourescent lighting.

     



  • @Weng said:

    Cost of these CRT monitors: $0
     

    You make a compelling argument.

     

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @Weng said:

    Cost of these CRT monitors: $0
     

    You make a compelling argument.

    Cost of herpes: $0

    Cost of ice cream cone: $5

     

    Ergo, herpes is better than ice cream.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Cost of herpes: $0

    Cost of ice cream cone: $5

     

    Ergo, herpes is better than ice cream.

    I don't know where you're going to get herpes for free, unless you aren't taking into account the cost of roofies.



  •  Herpes is more of a wildcard bonus feature; one of many. Like little plastic smurfs, you could Collect them all!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     Herpes and ice cream don't fulfill the same function.



  • @Weng said:

    Herpes and ice cream don't fulfill the same function.

    Says you.



  •  @Carnildo said:

    I take it you've never played older computer games? "Variable resolution" is a very recent phenomenon: most games more than ten years old will only support one or two specific screen sizes. The two standard resolutions for MS-DOS games were 320x200 (CGA, EGA, 256-color VGA) and 640x480 (16-color VGA, SVGA).

    Sure I did.  I played the original Doom and Duke Nukem.  Hell, I even had Leisure Suit Larry.  But that was BEFORE LCD's CAME OUT!!!  Good lord, I dont' still play those crappy ass pixelated games.  They were cool in the day because, well, there wasn't anything else.  That and they were revolutionary (god I hate using that word, I feel like a fag every time I do: go CHE!).

     

    If you still play those games you might want to visit your local GameStop.  There are quite a few options now.



  • @amischiefr said:

    If you still play those games you might want to visit your local GameStop.  There are quite a few options now.
    But they want money.  I'd rather play a game I can pirate in 13 seconds flat so I don't have to interface with any humans or go $20 in debt to my parents.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @amischiefr said:

    If you still play those games you might want to visit your local GameStop.  There are quite a few options now.
    But they want money.  I'd rather play a game I can pirate in 13 seconds flat so I don't have to interface with any humans or go $20 in debt to my parents.

     

    Move out of your god damned parents basement already!  FFS you're a programmer aren't you?  You should be making enough money to afford a small shack in some trailor park.  



  • @amischiefr said:

    Move out of your god damned parents basement already!

    What?  And lose my totally sweet pad?  Where would I host my tabletop role-playing games or take the hypothetical women I'll be sexing after I finish the bitchin' paint job on my van?



  • @amischiefr said:

    Move out of your god damned parents basement already!
    Who said I live in the basement?  Then I would have to move out of my Star Wars/Marvel comics themed room!



  • @amischiefr said:

    Move out of your god damned parents basement already!  FFS you're a programmer aren't you?  You should be making enough money to afford a small shack in some trailor park.
    Whoa, whoa, whoa.  How can I be expected to afford a Shack on a programmer's salary?  It's not like I'm doing data processing data data processing.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.