Two sides to every story



  • I have a printer-paper-politics story.  IT set it up one day that all printers at any location within the company (internationally) would print two-sided by default.  This was thought to save the company massive amounts of paper, and reap hella-benefits.  This led to an uproar, because written responses produced by certain departments are legally required to be on one-side-only.  The law is in place to make sure that my company doesn't purposely structure its letters so that they can "hide" information on the flipside where it's less likely to get noticed.  It took months of backlog/executive mediation/legal department consultation/IT wrangling before someone in one of those departments came to me to vent one day.

     

    I'm a data-analyst, and have nothing to do with any of that.  I told them, why don't they just change the default setting (like I had done to print to my local printer that can't print two-sided)?  They said that that wasn't a solution, because they would have do that every single time they print.     Apparently, not everyone in these departments (that generate/print/stuff/send letters) is tech-savvy enough to shut off a default option, let alone to restore the old default.  After their their department manager followed me around the two-dozen machines that were on-site, and had me explain each time not to change the settings in the printer dialogue, but on the printers' control panel, she got it.  The message went out around the world, complete with screenshots, that there was a "workaround to the two-sided printer problem."  Suddenly, no one anywhere in any department was printing on both sides anymore.

     

    IT found out, of course, but it was already too late.  When they tried to get it approved to make changing the printer settings locally only available to those with local administrator rights, and therefore one-sided printing could only be done by request ... the executives decided to maintain the status-quo.  That was four years ago.  To this day, newly imaged machines come two-sided, and are quickly reset to one-sided printing.  I had accidentally, but single-handedly defeated the company-wide money-saving world-greening initiative :(  I'm sure that IT can't wait for the first OS upgrade (Windows 7, ungh) to try their hand again at putting the kabash on the users.

     

    Added line breaks. -TheShadowMod



  • Think of the trees! Think of the children!

    Actually I don't blame you, management rarely have a clue about the users wants and needs and always come up with some money saving 'scheme', which in the long run ends up costing what it would have saved. A recent example of management change was for our support call logging system in house. The app uses MDI windows, and management decided that the ability to change the size of the child windows was going to be locked down. Of course come the working week following the weekend deployment there were quite a few complaints. The app didn't care what resolution was used and refused to let anyone change the size of the inner windows. This led to massive windows that you had to scroll to see, and tiny boxes on forms that showed you half a line of information before you had to page down.

    Of course the ability to resize was re-implemented that very day due to 'unpopular' demand. (Thank god one of the new features was automatic updates!)



  • If the printers in question are HP LaserJets, or a printer compatible with HP PJL, then you can configure the default duplex settings remotely by sending a specially formatted print job containing this:

    ^[%-12345X@PJL DEFAULT DUPLEX=OFF^M^[%-12345X

    Where "^[" is the escape character and "^M" is a line feed.

    This should turn off duplex for all subsequent jobs. There are other fun commands, like @PJL RDYMSG DISPLAY="Please Insert 5 Cents"



  • @undrline said:

     

    Added line breaks. -TheShadowMod

    I have here, in my hands, definitive proof that TheShadowMod is none other than looks at paper JIMMY HOFFA?  Aww, crap, I paid $50,000 dollars for this?  This is the last time I hire btk as an investigative journalist.



  • @Charleh said:

    Actually I don't blame you, management rarely have a clue about the users wants and needs and always come up with some money saving 'scheme', which in the long run ends up costing what it would have saved. A recent example of management change was for our support call logging system in house. The app uses MDI windows, and management decided that the ability to change the size of the child windows was going to be locked down.
    How was this a money-saving scheme?  Do they have to pay rent for the screen real estate?



  •  Awesome title!  This article is definitely front page-worthy, in my opinion.



  • @smxlong said:

    If the printers in question are HP LaserJets,
    or a printer compatible with HP PJL, then you can configure the default
    duplex settings remotely by sending a specially formatted print job
    containing this:

    ^[%-12345X@PJL DEFAULT DUPLEX=OFF^M^[%-12345X

    Where "^[" is the escape character and "^M" is a line feed.

    This should turn off duplex for all subsequent jobs. There are other fun
    commands, like @PJL RDYMSG DISPLAY="Please Insert 5 Cents"


    At the time, it was a Xerox.  I think it's been replaced with HP (I work on a different floor now), so that is a good point for when they roll out the XP to 7 upgrade.



  •  @joeyadams said:

     Awesome title!  This article is definitely front page-worthy, in my opinion.

     

    Thanks.



  • @undrline said:

    not everyone in these departments (that generate/print/stuff/send letters) is tech-savvy enough to shut off a default option, let alone to restore the old default.

    And then, two lines later:

    @undrline said:

    The message went out around the world, complete with screenshots, that there was a "workaround to the two-sided printer problem."

    So they're savvy enough to change the settings on the printer control panel, but not to change a dialogue default?

     I call shenanigans.



  • @da Doctah said:

    @undrline said:

    not everyone in these departments (that generate/print/stuff/send letters) is tech-savvy enough to shut off a default option, let alone to restore the old default.

    And then, two lines later:

    @undrline said:

    The message went out around the world, complete with screenshots, that there was a "workaround to the two-sided printer problem."

    So they're savvy enough to change the settings on the printer control panel, but not to change a dialogue default?

     I call shenanigans.

     

     

    I call not reading the story.  I showed their manager how to do it.  She took notes, had me send her screenshots, and she put together a how-to that she emailed out to her counterparts at other locations.  She gave me no credit in the dissemination, and called it a workaround.  I wanted to be honest in pointing out that they weren't all numbnuts: that's why I did point out that some of the staff had been able to find the setting clicking around under Properties/Printer Preferences, but they hadn't shared the information, and were having to do it every time they printed from Word.



  •  "Kabash"?



  •  @SQLDave said:

     "Kabash"?

     kibosh, sorry.



  • @joeyadams said:

     Awesome title!  This article is definitely front page-worthy, in my opinion.

     

    Well, it certainly would have been if the default solution had become "Insert a blank page using the enter [or space!] key between every page of your document." Even using a page break would have beenWTFworthy.

    Have you searched the network for a "Blank Page.doc", which consists of a whole page of space characters?



  • @bstorer said:

    How was this a money-saving scheme?  Do they have to pay rent for the screen real estate?

    Sorry should have added a paragraph break there for all you pedantics! The line "A recent example of management change was for our support call logging system in house" puts the next sentence in context. That one wasn't a 'money saver' but it was still a stupid management idea!



  • @smxlong said:

    If the printers in question are HP LaserJets, or a printer compatible with HP PJL, then you can configure the default duplex settings remotely by sending a specially formatted print job containing this:

    ^[%-12345X@PJL DEFAULT DUPLEX=OFF^M^[%-12345X

    Where "^[" is the escape character and "^M" is a line feed. This should turn off duplex for all subsequent jobs. There are other fun commands, like @PJL RDYMSG DISPLAY="Please Insert 5 Cents"

    These days you can just go to your browser and enter http://printername to pull up the remote control panel.

     



  • @undrline said:

    She gave me no blame in the dissemination, and called it a workaround.
    Be honest, I FTFY.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @undrline said:

    She gave me no blame in the dissemination, and called it a reacharound.
    Be honest, I FTFY.

    STFY



  • @undrline said:

    ... , but single-handedly defeated the company-wide money-saving marketing-driven image-greening initiative
    FTFY.

    World don't need these policies to be green, dude.



  • @bstorer said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    @undrline said:

    She gave me no blame in the insemination, and called it a reacharound.
    Be honest, I FTFY.

    STFY

     FTFY

     




  • @robbak said:

    @joeyadams said:

     Awesome title!  This article is definitely front page-worthy, in my opinion.

     

    Well, it certainly would have been if the default solution had become "Insert a blank page using the enter [or space!] key between every page of your document." Even using a page break would have beenWTFworthy.

    Have you searched the network for a "Blank Page.doc", which consists of a whole page of space characters?

     Man, you have no idea. That doesn't count as a WTF at all; it's a proportionate response :)

     The user I spoke to the other day who reported (two years after the most recent printer change that affected them) that they were fed up with 'only being able to print one page at a time since the change'. After extensive trouble-shooting, turned out that what they meant was that they had to print no more than one page at a time if they didn't want it duplexed, so documents with tens of pages had for two years been being manually printed one page at a time using the 'Print page X' setting.

     I won't even go into the user who wanted to know why they couldn't print a video.



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    I won't even go into the user who wanted to know why they couldn't print a video.
    That's what you get with stupid Adobe specs permitting to embed videos in PDFs : dumb users wanting to print it...



  • @toshir0 said:

    @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    I won't even go into the user who wanted to know why they couldn't print a video.
    That's what you get with stupid Adobe specs permitting to embed videos in PDFs : dumb users wanting to print it...

    WTF?  Maybe allowing video to be embedded in a PDF is dumb (or maybe not), but if someone is too stupid to realize you can't print a video then that's hardly the fault of this "feature".



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @toshir0 said:

    @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    I won't even go into the user who wanted to know why they couldn't print a video.
    That's what you get with stupid Adobe specs permitting to embed videos in PDFs : dumb users wanting to print it...

    WTF?  Maybe allowing video to be embedded in a PDF is dumb (or maybe not), but if someone is too stupid to realize you can't print a video then that's hardly the fault of this "feature".

    Actually, you can print out some videos.  For example, with a Michael Bay movie, you can print out any particular frame (invariably an explosion of some sort) and shake it violently for 90 minutes.  You have to add your own overly-loud sound effects and poorly-written dialogue, though.



  • Still don't get how recycling paper is "green" in these days of searching for solutions to excess atmospheric carbon "global warming".

    Paper in a landfill = carbon sequestration, requiring the planting of new fast growth trees (we have some really fast growing super-pines), which remove CO2 from the atmosphere, are converted to paper pulp, and then dumped in a landfill, requiring more fast growing trees etc. etc.

    Ok, that handles the paper side.  And, if you use soy based ink, or carbon based toners, same thing.

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.

     .

     .

     .

    Oh, wait, it has NOTHING to do with being "green", it's all about cost saving by reducing paper consumption!  How could I have been so blind to this!



  • @Medezark said:

    Still don't get how recycling paper is "green" in these days of searching for solutions to excess atmospheric carbon "global warming".

    Paper in a landfill = carbon sequestration, requiring the planting of new fast growth trees (we have some really fast growing super-pines), which remove CO2 from the atmosphere, are converted to paper pulp, and then dumped in a landfill, requiring more fast growing trees etc. etc.

    Ok, that handles the paper side.  And, if you use soy based ink, or carbon based toners, same thing.

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.

     .

     .

     .

    Oh, wait, it has NOTHING to do with being "green", it's all about cost saving by reducing paper consumption!  How could I have been so blind to this!

     

     

    At least in the US, green is the color of money; I'm with you on green-tinted-lenses.  Don't get me started on how bad the proliferation of CFLs is for the environment!



  • @Medezark said:

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.
    The only reason I can imagine that can make you write such nonsense would be if you are american (this sentence must be grammatically awful, I can't really say... but it will feed you, pedantic nazis of my heart). Why ? Because US never have really invested in research about recycled paper ("what ? recycling ? are you mad ? wood is an infinite resource, you wacky hippies !"), and are now far retarded on this side of industry.



  • @undrline said:

    At least in the US, green is the color of money; I'm with you on green-tinted-lenses.  Don't get me started on how bad the proliferation of CFLs is for the environment!

    Shenanigans. Unless you've got another problem with them, besides Mercury.



  • @robbak said:

    @joeyadams said:

     Awesome title!  This article is definitely front page-worthy, in my opinion.

     

    Well, it certainly would have been if the default solution had become "Insert a blank page using the enter [or space!] key between every page of your document." Even using a page break would have beenWTFworthy.

    Have you searched the network for a "Blank Page.doc", which consists of a whole page of space characters?

     

    I see what you did there.  "front-page"  rofl.



  • @Medezark said:

    it's all about cost saving by reducing paper consumption!
    Don't forget the marketing aspect.  It's worth the price of a recycling box in the corner of the break room to be seen as green to potential clients and employees.



  • @bstorer said:

    Actually, you can print out some videos.  For example, with a Michael Bay movie, you can print out any particular frame (invariably an explosion of some sort) and shake it violently for 90 minutes.
    Does that work for certain OutKast songs/videos as well? Except they're invariably intolerable for longer than a minute, let alone 90.



  • @toshir0 said:

    @Medezark said:

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.
    The only reason I can imagine that can make you write such nonsense would be if you are american (this sentence must be grammatically awful, I can't really say... but it will feed you, pedantic nazis of my heart). Why ? Because US never have really invested in research about recycled paper ("what ? recycling ? are you mad ? wood is an infinite resource, you wacky hippies !"), and are now far retarded on this side of industry.

    You are such a fucking retard.  Recycling paper is a huge waste of money.  It's also terrible for the environment, although I don't care as much about that.  It takes a large amount of energy, creates a lot of toxic waste from the bleaching and reduces the number of trees in the world.  See, new paper is made from fast-growth trees specifically bred and raised for paper.  It's grown like a crop.  Nobody clear-cuts an old-growth forest for making paper (or even most lumber, but that's a whole different argument).  If you had the slightest fucking clue what you were talking about, maybe I wouldn't talk to you like the shit-for-brains Eurotrash you are.

     

    Edit: And no resource is infinite (except maybe your ignorance), but paper is certainly a renewable resource.  As long as you have sunlight, nitrogen, carbon and water, you can grow all the fucking trees you want.  Also, the extra trees actually a net benefit for the environment.  So if you care about the environment, start printing out everything and throwing it away.



  • At last, morbs ! I've been fishing you all the time but I was trying to doubt you would bite the hook.

    Of course, the real problem is not here : it's about what you'll do with (either recycled or non-recycled) paper : to make packaging paper for stupid products, print excellent books, or clean your burger-shitting ass.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @toshir0 said:

    @Medezark said:

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.
    The only reason I can imagine that can make you write such nonsense would be if you are american (this sentence must be grammatically awful, I can't really say... but it will feed you, pedantic nazis of my heart). Why ? Because US never have really invested in research about recycled paper ("what ? recycling ? are you mad ? wood is an infinite resource, you wacky hippies !"), and are now far retarded on this side of industry.

    You are such a fucking retard.  Recycling paper is a huge waste of money.  It's also terrible for the environment, although I don't care as much about that.  It takes a large amount of energy, creates a lot of toxic waste from the bleaching and reduces the number of trees in the world.  See, new paper is made from fast-growth trees specifically bred and raised for paper.  It's grown like a crop.  Nobody clear-cuts an old-growth forest for making paper (or even most lumber, but that's a whole different argument).  If you had the slightest fucking clue what you were talking about, maybe I wouldn't talk to you like the shit-for-brains Eurotrash you are.

     

    Edit: And no resource is infinite (except maybe your ignorance), but paper is certainly a renewable resource.  As long as you have sunlight, nitrogen, carbon and water, you can grow all the fucking trees you want.  Also, the extra trees actually a net benefit for the environment.  So if you care about the environment, start printing out everything and throwing it away.

     

    You're a total c*nt (I mean that in the nicest possible way). That said, you're not too wrong. Huge tracts of Madagascan rainforest have been destroyed and replaced wit monoculture sisal because the fibres are good for recycling when made into paper...

     None of this is as stupid, IMO, as the people who feed crumpled pages, already printed on one side, back into their printer 'to save paper' and then require a new printer twice as soon as anyone who treats the expensive, hard to build, part well.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Also, the extra trees actually a net benefit for the environment.
    Really? How so?



  • @toshir0 said:

    @Medezark said:

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.
    The only reason I can imagine that can make you write such nonsense would be if you are american (this sentence must be grammatically awful, I can't really say... but it will feed you, pedantic nazis of my heart). Why ? Because US never have really invested in research about recycled paper ("what ? recycling ? are you mad ? wood is an infinite resource, you wacky hippies !"), and are now far retarded on this side of industry.

     

    You are completely missing the point, so let me break it down to you:

    1. One current major "concern" in regards to environmental "friendliness" and "global climate change" is "net carbon output to the atmosphere"

    2. Reducing "net carbon output to the atmosphere" is considered "green" or "environmentally friendly"

    3. Recycled paper reduced the demand for NEW trees.

    4. Virgin paper INCREASES the demand for NEW trees.

    5. If paper is not recycled, the CARBON content of that paper becomes locked away in landfills/the soil, and the decay products (mostly methane gas) can be captured and used for energy generation.

    6. NEW trees (especially the fast-growth super trees preferred for paper production) remove carbon from the atmosphere at a high rate.

    Roughly 22% of the weight of recycled paper feedstocks is "sludge", a combination of Ink and other waste products from the recycling process, that ends up dumped in the landfill in concentrated form.

    Arguments that recycling paper "saves trees" are spurious.  The Kraft paper industry invests heavily in reforestation.

    Arguments that recycling paper "reduces energy consumption" are likewise questionable due to the sources of energy for Kraft and recycled paper plants, also, somehow, the energy cost of all of the additional bleaches and chemicals used to recycle paper never seem to get added in, nor the cost of properly disposing of the waste products.

    Recycled paper IS better for certain specific applications.  Attempting to use recycled paper for other purposes requires additional processing which tend to increase the environmental cost of use.

    By the way, recycled paper isn't an infinite resource either, eventually the fibers become so short that you can't recycle it again.

    But, there is HUGE profit in the paper recycling industry, as typically they obtain their feedstock at substantially discounted rates as compared to Kraft paper, and then can turn around and recieve government subsidies as well as playing the "GREEN" card for marketting purposes.  And they have absolutely no incentive for investing in re-forestration projects.  Of course they do reduce the size of local landfills by removing all of the biodegradable materials and sending only the highly concentrated toxic sludge so that it's byproducts can leach into the local water supply.

    Of course, if you happen to live in a location where you've already urbanized every available square foot EXCEPT for old-growth virgin forests and barely enough arable land to feed your population, then you have to recycle as much as you can.



  • @Medezark said:

    @toshir0 said:

    @Medezark said:

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.
    The only reason I can imagine that can make you write such nonsense would be if you are american (this sentence must be grammatically awful, I can't really say... but it will feed you, pedantic nazis of my heart). Why ? Because US never have really invested in research about recycled paper ("what ? recycling ? are you mad ? wood is an infinite resource, you wacky hippies !"), and are now far retarded on this side of industry.

     

    You are completely missing the point, so let me break it down to you:

    1. One current major "concern" in regards to environmental "friendliness" and "global climate change" is "net carbon output to the atmosphere"

    2. Reducing "net carbon output to the atmosphere" is considered "green" or "environmentally friendly"

    3. Recycled paper reduced the demand for NEW trees.

    4. Virgin paper INCREASES the demand for NEW trees.

    5. If paper is not recycled, the CARBON content of that paper becomes locked away in landfills/the soil, and the decay products (mostly methane gas) can be captured and used for energy generation.

    6. NEW trees (especially the fast-growth super trees preferred for paper production) remove carbon from the atmosphere at a high rate.

    Roughly 22% of the weight of recycled paper feedstocks is "sludge", a combination of Ink and other waste products from the recycling process, that ends up dumped in the landfill in concentrated form.

    Arguments that recycling paper "saves trees" are spurious.  The Kraft paper industry invests heavily in reforestation.

    Arguments that recycling paper "reduces energy consumption" are likewise questionable due to the sources of energy for Kraft and recycled paper plants, also, somehow, the energy cost of all of the additional bleaches and chemicals used to recycle paper never seem to get added in, nor the cost of properly disposing of the waste products.

    Recycled paper IS better for certain specific applications.  Attempting to use recycled paper for other purposes requires additional processing which tend to increase the environmental cost of use.

    By the way, recycled paper isn't an infinite resource either, eventually the fibers become so short that you can't recycle it again.

    But, there is HUGE profit in the paper recycling industry, as typically they obtain their feedstock at substantially discounted rates as compared to Kraft paper, and then can turn around and recieve government subsidies as well as playing the "GREEN" card for marketting purposes.  And they have absolutely no incentive for investing in re-forestration projects.  Of course they do reduce the size of local landfills by removing all of the biodegradable materials and sending only the highly concentrated toxic sludge so that it's byproducts can leach into the local water supply.

    Of course, if you happen to live in a location where you've already urbanized every available square foot EXCEPT for old-growth virgin forests and barely enough arable land to feed your population, then you have to recycle as much as you can.

     Errr...

    What about chemical waste factor after morbs has wiped his green cockjuice on very single page that has not been recycled?




  • @Helix said:

    @Medezark said:

    @toshir0 said:

    @Medezark said:

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.
    The only reason I can imagine that can make you write such nonsense would be if you are american (this sentence must be grammatically awful, I can't really say... but it will feed you, pedantic nazis of my heart). Why ? Because US never have really invested in research about recycled paper ("what ? recycling ? are you mad ? wood is an infinite resource, you wacky hippies !"), and are now far retarded on this side of industry.

     

    You are completely missing the point, so let me break it down to you:

    1. One current major "concern" in regards to environmental "friendliness" and "global climate change" is "net carbon output to the atmosphere"

    2. Reducing "net carbon output to the atmosphere" is considered "green" or "environmentally friendly"

    3. Recycled paper reduced the demand for NEW trees.

    ...

    But, there is HUGE profit in the paper recycling industry, as typically they obtain their feedstock at substantially discounted rates as compared to Kraft paper, and then can turn around and recieve government subsidies as well as playing the "GREEN" card for marketting purposes.  And they have absolutely no incentive for investing in re-forestration projects.  Of course they do reduce the size of local landfills by removing all of the biodegradable materials and sending only the highly concentrated toxic sludge so that it's byproducts can leach into the local water supply.

    Of course, if you happen to live in a location where you've already urbanized every available square foot EXCEPT for old-growth virgin forests and barely enough arable land to feed your population, then you have to recycle as much as you can.

     Errr...

    What about chemical waste factor after morbs has wiped his green cockjuice on very single page that has not been recycled?


    Ok, in that case recycling once again becomes green.  But who would want to use the resulting recycled paper then?



  • @Medezark said:

    @Helix said:

    @Medezark said:

    @toshir0 said:

    @Medezark said:

    Recycling paper seems fairly non-green.
    The only reason I can imagine that can make you write such nonsense would be if you are american (this sentence must be grammatically awful, I can't really say... but it will feed you, pedantic nazis of my heart). Why ? Because US never have really invested in research about recycled paper ("what ? recycling ? are you mad ? wood is an infinite resource, you wacky hippies !"), and are now far retarded on this side of industry.

     

    You are completely missing the point, so let me break it down to you:

    1. One current major "concern" in regards to environmental "friendliness" and "global climate change" is "net carbon output to the atmosphere"

    2. Reducing "net carbon output to the atmosphere" is considered "green" or "environmentally friendly"

    3. Recycled paper reduced the demand for NEW trees.

    ...

    But, there is HUGE profit in the paper recycling industry, as typically they obtain their feedstock at substantially discounted rates as compared to Kraft paper, and then can turn around and recieve government subsidies as well as playing the "GREEN" card for marketting purposes.  And they have absolutely no incentive for investing in re-forestration projects.  Of course they do reduce the size of local landfills by removing all of the biodegradable materials and sending only the highly concentrated toxic sludge so that it's byproducts can leach into the local water supply.

    Of course, if you happen to live in a location where you've already urbanized every available square foot EXCEPT for old-growth virgin forests and barely enough arable land to feed your population, then you have to recycle as much as you can.

     Errr...

    What about chemical waste factor after morbs has wiped his green cockjuice on very single page that has not been recycled?


    Ok, in that case recycling once again becomes green.  But who would want to use the resulting recycled paper then?

     

     

    PROFIT!!!



  • Hey guys did you watch fox news this morning!? Turns out that driving smaller cars are actually bad for the enviroment cause the oil companies can't invest as much in third world countries,



  • Well, thank goodness for that volcano in iceland.  That should lower global temperatures enough to offset global warming for a few years.



  • @Medezark said:

    Well, thank goodness for that volcano in iceland.  That should lower global temperatures enough to offset global warming for a few years.

    Cue the story I heard about some luser claiming on the radio that we saved all that CO2 with the flight bans.



    Conveniently ignoring all the CO2 Eyjafjallajokull was/is still spewing out, which is at least on a par with the amount 'saved.' Of course the eco-loons are saying it's spewing less that the planes would, and the deniers are saying it's spewed more.



  • @PJH said:

    @Medezark said:

    Well, thank goodness for that volcano in iceland.  That should lower global temperatures enough to offset global warming for a few years.

    Cue the story I heard about some luser claiming on the radio that we saved all that CO2 with the flight bans.



    Conveniently ignoring all the CO2 Eyjafjallajokull was/is still spewing out, which is at least on a par with the amount 'saved.' Of course the eco-loons are saying it's spewing less that the planes would, and the deniers are saying it's spewed more.

    Most volcanoes spew a considerable amount of carbon, more than what a few days of grounded flights would "save".  Then again, Eyjagjljgdslkjwharrgarbl didn't spew anywhere near the level of ash that computer models said it did, so who the fuck really knows?  (But I swearz the computer models of anthropomorphic carbon output are dead-on accurate!  As are the weather predictions for 2110!  It's based on real numbers which means it's science which means it has to be true!  There's a consensus!)

     

    At this point, I'm not even sure there was a volcano at all.  And what about "Iceland"?  A land of ice?  Full of fire-spewing volanoes?  Sounds made-up.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And what about "Iceland"?  A land of ice?
    Nope. Shouldn't Greenland be known as Iceland and vice versa?



  • @PJH said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    And what about "Iceland"?  A land of ice?
    Nope. Shouldn't Greenland be known as Iceland and vice versa?

    Fucking Europe, always being retarded.  Can we just go back in time and let Hitler take it all, so that the only "solution" is nuking every last square inch?

     

    Don't answer that.  You're European and that makes you biased.



  •  There's nothing that a couple mini nukes can't solve.



  • @dhromed said:

    There's nothing that a couple mini nukes can't solve.

    What about a laughably-small, perpetually-impotent wang?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:

    There's nothing that a couple mini nukes can't solve.

    What about a laughably-small, perpetually-impotent wang?



    I would find it distasteful to nuke you.



  • @dhromed said:

    There's nothing that a couple mini nukes can't solve.
    Except a chronic lack of mini-nukes.



  • @Lingerance said:

    Except a chronic lack of mini-nukes.
     

    That problem would be most especially solved with a couple mini nukes.

     

     



  • @dhromed said:

    That problem would be most especially solved with a couple mini nukes.
    Like how the most effective way to be comfortable around women is to have sex with women?


Log in to reply
 

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