Didn't anyone ask themselves why filenames resembling "WinResrc.h" appear so many God damn times? Christ, how many does Microsoft need?
Arctic_Panda
@Arctic_Panda
Best posts made by Arctic_Panda
Latest posts made by Arctic_Panda
-
RE: Finding files on Windows Vista
-
RE: Double WTF with Orangelabel!
@SEMI-HYBRID code said:
Check out this article from main page - the first screenshot from the web of some icon design company... I followed the link to their page, and found out, that the image has been updated... but... not how you'd expect it to be...
I wonder how, and why they've done this...
(and it's even more strange as the site itself has quite an interesting and good design)
I wouldn't dismiss this just yet. Look at the bottom; that "thedailywtf." wasn't in the old image. Do you smell the viral marketting? o.O
-
RE: Slate's New America
@morbiuswilters said:
@shepd said:
Also, 97% of the world (95% that aren't from the US, and the ~40% of Americans that probably don't know where all the US states are) couldn't find Colorado or Wyoming on a state map unless the state's names are printed on it. So, no wonder nobody figured out the WTF until it was pointed out. ;-)
Meh, those are just the boring states that nobody cares about. Wyoming and Colorado could switch places in real life and I doubt anybody would notice. Really, we need to just eliminate about 32 of the lesser states and streamline our map.
The people in Colorado and Wyoming might notice.
-
RE: Please use one of these browsers
@morbiuswilters said:
@anthetos said:
Or they could just learn how the web works and not have this problem or anything like it...
How precisely would that be? Hell, why even bother? It's not worth the time or effort to take Linux into account for 99% of sites. You might as well worry about Opera and Lynx while you're at it.
Maybe because a month ago over 8% of home computers use Ubuntu and OS X and other Linux-based OSs. :P
-
RE: Here are your unemployment benefits... your unemployment benefits were denied
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
...I've gotten it from companies I've quit before (one of which I quit after 3 months due to moving), so I figured it was worth a shot...
@morbiuswilters said:
TRWTF is that you thought you would get unemployment benefits for quitting.
I would continue reading this thread after the second comment, but my brain just stumbled. Hard.
-
RE: WTF manager: Bob
@Kazan said:
stfu - I know several very hot, very intelligent and very adept female coders... couple from college and one from a place I used to work
When I describe a coworker, "hot" is usually not the first word I use.
-
RE: Conservation - in reverse
@Arctic_Panda said:
One is called "renewable" because your grandchildren will enjoy it and it's lifespan is eight orders of magnitude greater than something comparatively "non-renewable."
@morbiuswilters said:
@Arctic_Panda said:
lern2economics? Now you're resorting to personal insults on my intelligence rather than forming actual arguments. You're a God damn troll hoping to turn what would be a losing debate into a heated argument.
lern2read you arrogant condescending fool. You're only wasting space gloating your supposed superior intellect rather than adding to the debate. What you managed to spend an entire paragraph articulating was easily compressed into three words: "That model's wrong." I then explained what would really happen. All of the numbers I computed were based on the idea that we'd always need petroleum, and the point was that we'd need to find a different energy source because keeping up with the numbers is impossible. To that end I was agreeing with you, yet you still managed to hack together a couple of sentences to form what you believed was a witty rebuttal that only a person of your intellect could articulate. To that end I'm also agreeing with you, because you were the only person here dumb enough to effectively shout "I'm both arrogant and mentally impaired" to anyone following this thread.
You don't need a major in economics to understand the problem here, just a basic understanding of supply and demand and a grasp on basic mathematics. Everyone else understood what I was saying. You're the only one who felt special enough to write two full paragraphs proving you understood it.
My point was not that we're all going to fall under nuclear holocaust and the Sun will swallow the Earth because we run out of petroleum. If you read carefully you'll see I never reference any major calamities. The point was that, even with bstorer's generous predictions, we can't just sit around and do nothing 'cept let oil solve all our problems. Okay? Now take your Aristotle greater-than-thou mentality to someone you actually disagree with.
Wow, you are touchy.
I'm still not sure why you think my arguments were agreeing with you. Of course the natural supply of oil won't last forever, I never said that. You seem to think that there's some need to move away from using oil and I say that things will work themselves out. Technologies compete, the efficient ones find a place and they stick. I like oil and hope that it continues to be a viable option until something even more awesome than oil comes along.
My real disagreement was with your assertion that oil demand will continue to rise and supply will top out [I thought that model was inaccurate, too! -Arctic_Panda]. Demand will adapt to whatever supply is available so predictions of exponential growth are often flawed because they do not take this into account. This pretty much destroys your entire premise and invalidates anything else you base off of that claim. Demand will grow in step with supply and new technologies will allow for the expansion of supply. Competing technologies will allow the demand for petroleum to lessen. If we ever end up at a point where the vast majority of the world's oil supply is not being controlled by national governments, we will see the pricing even out instead of having the ups and downs it does now.
In other words, oil won't last 5 billion years and our grandchildren will enjoy other energy sources instead. I'm glad we really are on the same page, Captain Obvious.
-
RE: Conservation - in reverse
@morbiuswilters said:
@Arctic_Panda said:
I don't know where you got 10%-12.5%; I'm pretty sure it's 50%. It's difficult to predict, since we know there's some undiscovered oil. But every time you hear of a major oil discovery on the news, it usually amounts to two-years worth in the U.S. max.
The fact is, we really have very little clue how much oil there is in the ground. We also have no idea what future technologies will allow us to synthesize oil without the need of drilling. Trying to predict what the state of physics and chemistry will be in 30 years is pretty much impossible.
Only half-true. We know we're running out because it's harder and harder to find new sources. Since discoveries have been on the decline, we can predict the total we should find.
If we're uncertain about this figure as you say we are, then it's equally possible we've exhausted 90% of all supplies, which means we're really screwed.@morbiuswilters said:
@Arctic_Panda said:
That model's wrong, because while demand follows an exponential pattern, supply follows a bell curve. In actuality, we should experience excruciating hikes in oil prices when supply growth begins to decelerate for the obvious reason that supply is no longer keeping up with demand. The prices will make our lives suck, extend the supply's lifespan a few decades, and decrease it's cost-effective usable lifespan several more decades. Hey, this sounds eerily familiar.
Wrong. Demand follows a bell curve as well. As supply becomes more scarce people shift to other forms of energy. The demand will not keep growing expontentially simply because it cannot: there is no supply to allow it. Your statement is as idiotic as saying "The grow of the tree is exponential but the supply of nutrients and rain follows a bell curve". Demand adjusts to supply: lern2economics, n00b. Meanwhile, the problem with prices now has more to do with the way supply is managed and not with the actual supply itself. There's a hell of a lot of oil out there and probably tons we can't even imagine. Also, our ability to extract oil from alternate sources continues to grow, as does the knowledge necessary to efficiently synthesize gasoline and diesel.
@morbiuswilters said:
[quote user="Arctic_Panda"]Regardless of whether we're running out, we still need to extract it twice as fast in 40 years, quadruple speed in 80, and so on. If, that is, the demand in India and China grows steadily and doesn't accelerate.
Once again, demand will follow supply. What you are arguing is essentially nonsensical. Either the supply will be there for the demand or the demand will slowly shift elsewhere. It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatives to petroleum that become more efficient and feasible every year. The thing is, petroleum is just so goddamn wonderful. Gasoline is a ridiculously potent energy storage mechanism and its portability and near-ubiquitous use makes it extremely attractive. Things will change over time, but I wouldn't be shocked if synthetic fuels eventually take over, at least until battery technology gets to the point where it is as mature as the internal combustion engine. People who worry about this kind of thing are just knee-jerk alarmists. People have been predicting ruin since civilization began and they have been wrong every time. One hundred years ago the fear was running out of whale oil. Today nobody even uses the shit. If you honestly believe that we won't continue to have sufficient supplies of petroleum and other energy sources in 100 years, you are betting on the wrong damn team.
[/quote]lern2economics? Now you're resorting to personal insults on my intelligence rather than forming actual arguments. You're a God damn troll hoping to turn what would be a losing debate into a heated argument.
lern2read you arrogant condescending fool. You're only wasting space gloating your supposed superior intellect rather than adding to the debate. What you managed to spend an entire paragraph articulating was easily compressed into three words: "That model's wrong." I then explained what would really happen. All of the numbers I computed were based on the idea that we'd always need petroleum, and the point was that we'd need to find a different energy source because keeping up with the numbers is impossible. To that end I was agreeing with you, yet you still managed to hack together a couple of sentences to form what you believed was a witty rebuttal that only a person of your intellect could articulate. To that end I'm also agreeing with you, because you were the only person here dumb enough to effectively shout "I'm both arrogant and mentally impaired" to anyone following this thread.
You don't need a major in economics to understand the problem here, just a basic understanding of supply and demand and a grasp on basic mathematics. Everyone else understood what I was saying. You're the only one who felt special enough to write two full paragraphs proving you understood it.
My point was not that we're all going to fall under nuclear holocaust and the Sun will swallow the Earth because we run out of petroleum. If you read carefully you'll see I never reference any major calamities. The point was that, even with bstorer's generous predictions, we can't just sit around and do nothing 'cept let oil solve all our problems. Okay? Now take your Aristotle greater-than-thou mentality to someone you actually disagree with.
-
RE: Conservation - in reverse
@morbiuswilters said:
@Arctic_Panda said:
I think the fact that he attempted to equate over five billion years of solar power to fifty years of oil should discredit everything he ever says, ever. One is called "renewable" because your grandchildren will enjoy it and it's lifespan is eight orders of magnitude greater than something comparatively "non-renewable."
My point is that all resources run out eventually, except for human ingenuity. You also seem damn convinced that we will never find a way to manufacture synthetic petroleum.
I don't know much about synthetic oil, except that we know how to make it (I don't need to be confident that they "will find a way"; they have) and synthesising it requires energy. You'll have to tell me more of what you know about it before I can draw any conclusions.