The Back Room

Erudite__Eric wrote: Extremity is always stupid You probably meant "extremism". Extremity is an arm or leg... ".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997

You shouldn't call them "towelheads" - it's not a towel they are wearing, it's actually a sheet. So they prefer to be called "sheet heads"... Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011 ----- Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach ----- Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo! ----- Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932

Or just keep refilling a smaller tank.

OriginalGriff wrote: But since I have never seen anywhere (physical or virtual) that accepts them, I don't think they will become a part of my life in the way Paypal has any time soon. I doubt that it would be called legal tender soon, and I don't see parking-ticket-vending-machines accept those and return a few bitpennies change in the near future. OriginalGriff wrote: I also am not sure I like the "precharge" idea; and what if I want to spend more than B25? Do I have to enter a whole bunch of id numbers for different coins? If you intend to spend them physically (assuming one finds someone who accepts the trade), then 25 B1 coins would sound more appropriate. The B25 screams "purse", since it's not a wallet - it doesn't fold. Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss:

LOL! If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun

hey, here's an idea for you. set up a blog - oh, I don't know, may be a health and fitness blog, then put the url in your sig and go around posting on a few newsgroups with some sob story and a link in your signature to your blog. Might make you some money! MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

Distind wrote: And since people have been bickering about something with no evidence, constraints or impact for a really long time, we should totally believe them? I said nothing like that. Please don't confuse or attempt to interpret my understanding of what belief is to suggest that I am espousing a specific type of belief system. You do in fact understand that logical thought and all of science is based on core assumptions correct? And understand what an assumption is especially how those fundamental ones are treated? Distind wrote: Centuries of discourse mean little to nothing when attempting to hold god to modern standards of good. You are claiming that "modern standards" provide something more in terms of the definition of "good". If so then yes you can refute the other arguments. You however have not presented such information but rather just stated that everything that has gone before does not meet with your approval. And to make it clear I have no problem with you expressing a belief that everything before is useless but you seem to be claiming that it now logically incorrect. And that is wrong. Distind wrote: Here's the rub, good has changed, but god's a constant? Is god still good, are the actions in a given text still perfectly valid to inflict on people for the same reasons today? Pretty much if any of these are true, you can find a fault in the initial assumption, or at least the likely applications of it As I said before there is centuries worth of discourse on the subject. I can only suppose that you do not know that the nature of "good" is also part of vast body of work. Distind wrote: You keep branding about this concept of belief, as if it's the end all be all of dismissing those who prefer reality That statement makes it clear that you don't understand the true basis of 'belief'. It also suggests that you are unaware of or do not understand the discussions about reality that span millenia (not just centuries.) Distind wrote: While I'm sure all the grand philosophers of time past will be totally annoyed with me, but I prefer things with a basis in fact, There are always those within a belief system that are incapable of recognizi

GuyThiebaut wrote: a small mistake really that needn't detract from the bigger picture... OK, howsabout the emphasis on the acceptance of climate change by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists? AAPG Statement: Climate Change.[^] Issue: In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls [specifically including the geological, solar, and astronomic aspects of climate change] on climate is important. (My insert from the text of the Statement.) If you read the Statement (it is brief), you might find its acceptance of AGW to be somewhat lukewarm (or even kinda absent :) ). Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.

When she takes her girdle off, her knees disappear. Just like that old Carly Simon song... "You're so funny, You probably think this joke is about you" My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.

Rarely does one gag on their own filth. And if one does they should be proud of that moment. Either way, by making good facial expressions X| it becomes apparent to the newly initiated that it was not your doing... And if it was yours and you want to be proud of the moment you simply state as leaving "What the Fvq did I eat?" Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.

I like it :) I can think of quite a few people that would love to be involved in it as well. Seems like a fun drunken weekend project. Just need to find someone with an in at SyFy then ;P Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth - John 3:8 How true - at the time of St. John. Nowadays, from whence it will come and whither it will go are predictable to a remarkable degree. And air is visible, just in areas of the electromagnetic spectrum not detected by the eye. So you can watch the wind tousling locks or stripping trees bare, via sensors. (Just like Night Vision Sights, and Full Body Scanners.) Which is why I don't 'believe' in the wind, it is provable. ryanb31 wrote: Had you lived in the days of Galileo you would have been one of those scientists who wanted him dead Off the top of my head, I cannot recollect any 'scientists' who wanted Galileo dead. Basically, he could not prove his theory without recourse to the new-fangled telescope, through which they would not look. (Unscientific? Possibly, but understandable, glass distorts and introduces false images. Might not the phases of Venus be due to poor grinding?) Even the Church merely wished him to recant. Not because of heliocentrism per se, merely because they wished to 'manage' the release of such knowledge. Sure, they were prepared to torture him, but everyone recants under torture. Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.

I suppose every site has to have a troll. Well, who doesn't release stuff like that ? Microsoft software is just as bad. Christian Graus That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_

Firo Atrum Ventus wrote: I'm sure you'll get a faster more reasonable response. FTFY

When he asked for the back room to be created, it was because of CSS, and seemed quite valid. Having his own forum got to his head, I left it not long after. I've not kept track since then. Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.

Ohhh but if you only knew how many times my employer has reffered to me as the sausage... er wait. That sounds bad. Ah well. Came to the BR and there ya have it ;P Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.

I think this should become the equivalent of Liquid Nitrogen for reposts! Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^] -Or- A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]

Aah - thanks for waking me. My god - is that the time? OK - I'm off home now. See yah!