• Sgt. Preston (unregistered) in reply to mnature
    mnature:
    Darwinic Evolution is an idea, a hypothesis. Believing that there is a god that has created life is an idea, a hypothesis. Neither of them is subject to running tests on (unless the fruit flies suddenly become something other than fruit flies), hence, neither of them fall under scientific method. Both evolution and creationism are belief systems. For my part, I don't see that it makes any difference which one people believe in.

    But does make for good arguments.

    mnature, I highly recommend to you Richard Dawkins' current bestseller, "The God Delusion." He'll make you rethink much of what you just said.

  • - (unregistered) in reply to foo
    foo:
    I'm trying to imagine a dialog box that is so cumbersome to use that killing and restarting the process is simpler. And I'm failing.

    Anyway, don't remove the Cancel button or disable ctl-alt-del, just add a 2-minute delay. That will make it faster to complete the dialog and they don't lose the ability to kill the task or back out of incorrect transactions.

    It was probably made by a VB guy who doesn't understand that sometimes a keyboard is faster than a mouse. My guess is lots of input fields that doesn't work with the [TAB]-key, so that the tellers have to move the mouse and click for every field.

  • The Almighty Steve (unregistered) in reply to Rick
    Rick:
    I find that scientific evidence does in fact point to the existence of a God.
    Dude, you suck. I made it the whole way through this thread, being mildly irked at any hints that Creationism was valid and chuffed at flat out statements that Evolution was an untestable theory, but you sir, have made me wade head-deep into waters I did not wish to tread.

    Firstly, don't be stupid. Scientific evidence no more points to the existence of your imaginary ghost than yellow points to the existence of leprechauns. There is no scientific way to test for the existence of God (if there is, I'd say the onus is on you to prove it), ergo, scientific evidence can not point to the existence of God.

    Secondly, why stop at just God? Why not believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Woden, Thor, Ganesh and every other mockery of human intelligence that exists in the fanciful minds of this planet's inhabitants?

    If there really were a God, he'd tell you to wake the fuck up, get a job, and fix what's wrong with the little blue dot you live on rather than agruing over whether he exists.

    Now GBTW, you're making baby Jesus cry.

  • (cs) in reply to Rick
    Rick:
    I find that scientific evidence does in fact point to the existence of a God.

    I was with you up until this point, Rick. I appreciate you taking the time to separate the creationism idea from the young earth idea, but I would ask you to explain what scientific evidence you have that points to the existence of a god.

    It is worth noting that it is impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of an omnipotent god, but that's a very different thing.

  • Sgt. Preston (unregistered) in reply to -
    -:
    It was probably made by a VB guy who doesn't understand that sometimes a keyboard is faster than a mouse. My guess is lots of input fields that doesn't work with the [TAB]-key, so that the tellers have to move the mouse and click for every field.
    Now, why do you have to go and take a kick at VB? Visual Basic has fully supported configurable tab order and shortcut keys for ages. Do you just get some sort of serotonin jolt every time you take a cheap and unworthy shot at VB? (And before someone tells me I can't recognize sarcasm, please explain to me where the scathing wit is in this cheap shot.)
  • Tinkerghost (unregistered) in reply to Robert Hanson
    An example of people in the back room deciding what is best for the people up front, without doing any research or "looking over the shoulder".
    This is actually not one of those situations. This is directly related to users doing the same thing 200 times a day stop paying attention. By forcing them to enter the numbers, they force them to pay attention to what they are doing. Money is very important to banks, the correct ammount of money is even more important. The surprise to me is that it could possibly take less time to bring up taskmanager & kill the program than fill in 11 text boxes - most of which will be tab throughs.
  • mnature (unregistered) in reply to Rick
    Rick:
    I find that scientific evidence does in fact point to the existence of a God.

    I beg to differ with you on this. Scientific evidence is simply data. Scientific evidence, or data, is subject to interpretation. Whatever paradigm you choose to live within helps to determine how you interpret scientific evidence.

    Many world-class scientists do actually believe that there is some sort of deity that kick-started the whole universe, and set up conditions for life on this world. They can quote a lot of scientific evidence for this (partly because they are world-class scientists and know a lot of stuff). However, they generally don't go around talking about this, and not because they are afraid of ridicule. They don't talk about it because they understand that their life paradigms could be influencing how they are interpreting the data they are seeing. In addition, they have no interest in trying to influence other people to their views.

    During my life, I have heard several dozen hypotheses about how and why dinosaurs died out. One of them may be correct, or they may all be wrong. Lots of data, lots of scientific evidence, lots of ways of interpreting it. Lots of headlines through the years, too, only to be replaced a few years later with something new. The only interpretation we can truly say, is that the dinosaurs no longer seem to be alive.

    To dismiss evolution or creationism out-of-hand is prejudice. What difference does it really make to how you lead your life, or do your work? It is merely a topic to bring up during an all-night work session, to keep the adrenalin up so you can stay awake.

  • bob (unregistered) in reply to sol
    sol:
    So is this a COBOL program or an ARGO data program?

    The real WTF is I maintain ARGO data programs. We still can not capture keystrokes to stop this behavior. And the program is so ugly the 3 finger salute is the only way to kill it sometimes.

    captcha muhahaha - what the gods of coding must have been saying when I accepted this job. :)

  • (cs) in reply to mnature
    mnature:
    Darwin actually only discussed the changes that occur within a species.
    Bzzt, wrong, you lose:
    Darwin:
    Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species- that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species: or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other by an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage.
    mnature:
    Darwinic Evolution is an idea, a hypothesis. Believing that there is a god that has created life is an idea, a hypothesis. Neither of them is subject to running tests on (unless the fruit flies suddenly become something other than fruit flies), hence, neither of them fall under scientific method.
    Standard creationist nonsense. Evolution and the formation of species is readily observable, in fact is HAS been observed happening with fruit flies. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. An example that everyone knows about: horse and donkey. They can interbreed to form mules, but the offspring is nearly always infertile. Thus, horse and donkey are variations of a species (which can interbreed and form fertile offspring) that have almost completed the step towards becoming separate species (which cannot interbreed at all).
  • rast (unregistered) in reply to Daniel Beardsmore
    Daniel Beardsmore:
    For whatever reason, as a kid I liked having a password-protected screensaver on my PC.

    ...

    The screensaver was active at the time, so he'd decided simply to crash out of all my work, reboot and start a game without even asking!

    The real WTF was not using a BIOS password

  • (cs) in reply to Aaron
    Aaron:
    But specifying 6,000, which happens to be the number specified by the Creationist groups, lends an implicit credibility to the number.
    Presumably in the same way as "The Great Dictator" lent an implicit credibility to Adolf Hitler?
  • (cs) in reply to Rick
    Rick:
    I find that scientific evidence does in fact point to the existence of a God.
    *blink*

    Did you actually mean "the existence of a God can be objectively deduced from the evidence"? If so, that's an extraordinary claim - equivalent to claiming that God's existence can be proven - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (Kind of makes faith redundant though, doesn't it?)

    Or did you mean something more along the lines of "the more scientific evidence I see, the more I become convinced that there must be a divine being behind it all"? If so, you're far from being alone, even amongst that hugely diverse and blurry-edged group we disserve with the catch-all tag "scientists" - or philosophers, artists, in fact pretty much anyone who's stared up at the stars on a cloudless night and marvelled at the wonder of us being here at all. Such things reach into the very core of what it is to be an emotional, intelligent creature; they exist beyond the intellect, and to be honest should probably be left there. The existence of a god, let alone any characteristics that could be ascribed to such a being, isn't a question for science to answer; it isn't a question that science can answer, and anyone who claims to know any answer with any degree of certainty, much less to have the right to force anyone else to buy into their answer, is a fool.

    Personally I'm with José Chung: "Oh, there are times when I've been a devout believer. And there are some times I have been a staunch atheist, and there've been times when I've been both... during the course of the same sexual act."

  • (cs) in reply to Aaron
    Aaron:
    Re: the creationism thing

    Sarcasm, jokes, it doesn't matter.

    Think of all the blonde jokes you've heard. Or the jokes about southerners. Jokes can be damaging because they sneak into our subconscious. Think about the jokes you've heard about some stereotype, and how your immediate perception of those stereotypes is affected.

    This article referenced "6,000 years" specifically. It would be different if he used a more generic "thousands of years" or "tens of thousands", because it just implies "a long time ago". But specifying 6,000, which happens to be the number specified by the Creationist groups, lends an implicit credibility to the number. It was only mentioned in passing, used as a flavorful enhancement to the sentence.

    It's the implicit acceptance we grant it, the "oh, that's too small of a thing to argue over" phenomena. Those little things build up steam and become bigger things. Creationists gather strength from the fact that most people are too apathetic to argue the points with them.

    There's plenty of reliable research and experimentation that's been done that proves the earth is well over 6,000 years old [even Carbon-dating, which the creationist movmement touts as "not accurate beyond a few thousand years" is reasonably accurate up to just over 50,000 years! Archaeologists use other means of radiometric dating now, such as Uranium-Thorium, which is accurate for a lot longer due to a lengthier half-life].

    Anyways. Back to work.

    And your point is????

  • mnature (unregistered) in reply to brazzy
    brazzy:
    Standard creationist nonsense.

    Creationist? I'm an exogenesist! You silly darwinists aren't allowing enough time for stuff to mutate. Life on this earth had to come from somewhere else. That's what the experiments with fruit flies and such have shown, that micro-evolution can be proven to occur, but macro-evolution just requires too much time.

    This also moves the argument of where life came from originally (which really is the primal question), to some galaxy far far away.

  • BiDough (unregistered) in reply to MikeCD

    MSDN had an article a few years back on how to do it.

  • Old Wolf (unregistered) in reply to Rick
    Rick:
    I find that scientific evidence does in fact point to the existence of a God.

    Care to share any of this evidence with us?

  • (cs) in reply to Sgt. Preston
    Sgt. Preston:
    Both evolution and creationism are belief systems.
    The mantra of the creationist.
  • (cs) in reply to mnature
    mnature:
    Many world-class scientists do actually believe that there is some sort of deity that kick-started the whole universe,
    So where do these guys think this deity came from? Got any supporting links?
    During my life, I have heard several dozen hypotheses about how and why dinosaurs died out. One of them may be correct, or they may all be wrong. Lots of data, lots of scientific evidence, lots of ways of interpreting it. Lots of headlines through the years, too, only to be replaced a few years later with something new. The only interpretation we can truly say, is that the dinosaurs no longer seem to be alive.
    OMG, an unsolved problem!!!!11 How will we cope?
    What difference does it really make to how you lead your life, or do your work? It is merely a topic to bring up during an all-night work session, to keep the adrenalin up so you can stay awake.
    Your world-view isn't shared by me, nor (I presume) by most scientists. It does make a difference to me to know the truth.
  • Mithrandir (unregistered) in reply to mnature
    mnature:
    brazzy:
    Standard creationist nonsense.

    Creationist? I'm an exogenesist! You silly darwinists aren't allowing enough time for stuff to mutate. Life on this earth had to come from somewhere else. That's what the experiments with fruit flies and such have shown, that micro-evolution can be proven to occur, but macro-evolution just requires too much time.

    This also moves the argument of where life came from originally (which really is the primal question), to some galaxy far far away.

    Yeah, yeah, fruit flies are still fruit flies. And you can take most of the hair off an ape, adjust the pelvis so it's bipedal, and give it a big brain, but it's still an ape. Right, fellow ape?

    How long, do you think, does it take for "macroevolution" to occur?

  • JD (unregistered)

    Ahem, if we could switch back to the subject of users' "ingenuity"....

    While everyone has been amazed at how creative this latest Stupid User Trick is--using CTRL-ALT-DEL to get past an annoying program--I wonder if anyone else realizes that the WTF procedure was OUR fault. The fault of one of us, at least.

    I don't think the bank tellers came up with the idea on their own. I think one of us gurus gave them the idea.

    I imagine a teller who has a Windows machine at home, but knows nothing about Windows. One day a program crashes, and she cries "Help!" to the nearest relative who IS a guru. So her husband, or son, or whoever, happens to kill the process using CTRL-ALT-DEL, maybe halfway explaining "This is what I do when a program has gone crazy." The teller goes "Oh!" and it immediately gets stuck in her mind as the "expert" way of curing the problem.

    "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."

    Later at her work, the next time her coworkers complain about what they believe is problem with the program, she proudly shows them the new trick her son showed her. "This is how real computer experts do it!" And who doesn't want follow the "experts"?

    Beware of users watching what you are doing. You may be training them without realizing it. Don't forget to give the old TV show warning: "Don't try this at home."

    Or at least give the complete quote above (with my emphasis):

    "A LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing. Use ALL of it, or none."

  • Origins : No one knows for sure. (unregistered) in reply to Sgt. Preston
    Sgt. Preston:
    mnature:
    Darwinic Evolution is an idea, a hypothesis. Believing that there is a god that has created life is an idea, a hypothesis. Neither of them is subject to running tests on (unless the fruit flies suddenly become something other than fruit flies), hence, neither of them fall under scientific method. Both evolution and creationism are belief systems. For my part, I don't see that it makes any difference which one people believe in.

    But does make for good arguments.

    mnature, I highly recommend to you Richard Dawkins' current bestseller, "The God Delusion." He'll make you rethink much of what you just said.

    Read the The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski and Darwin's black box by Michael Behe. You rethink much of what Dawkins said.

  • Origins : No one knows for sure. (unregistered) in reply to The Almighty Steve

    Read up on Biochemistry.

  • iMalc (unregistered)

    Those "Proof of God" claims only stack up when you have already made the assumption that God exists, so they're always circular references, and prove nothing.

    Ctrl-Shift-Escape FTW!

  • (cs) in reply to mnature
    mnature:
    brazzy:
    Standard creationist nonsense.
    Creationist? I'm an exogenesist!
    Well, it IS one of the most common arguments used by creationists.
    mnature:
    You silly darwinists aren't allowing enough time for stuff to mutate. Life on this earth had to come from somewhere else. That's what the experiments with fruit flies and such have shown, that micro-evolution can be proven to occur, but macro-evolution just requires too much time.

    What exactly do you mean with "macroevolution"? The formation of a separate species? Exactly that has been observed with fruit flies, given the definition of "separate species" as "cannot interbreed anymore". See the link I gave. Or do you think that it's only a separate species if looks different enough? What is "different enough"? Ever compared a Chihuahua with a St. Bernard?

    Yes, macroevolution typically takes too long for humans to observe it happening except in rare cases or through indirect means (fossil record). But definitely not too long to have happened on Earth the way commonly accepted scientific theory (of evolution) claims - the human lifespan is insignificant compared with the time life has existed on Earth.

  • R (unregistered) in reply to The Almighty Steve
    The Almighty Steve:
    There is no scientific way to test for the existence of God (if there is, I'd say the onus is on you to prove it), ergo, scientific evidence can not point to the existence of God.

    Secondly, why stop at just God? Why not believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Woden, Thor, Ganesh and every other mockery of human intelligence that exists in the fanciful minds of this planet's inhabitants?

    Science is the wrong tool for a historical question. Do consistent phenomena rule our lives? Yes, we describe them with science. Did God make the world? Was evolution the mechanism of the origin of species? That's historical. Only someone in the know can answer: the point of the story of Job.

    Personally, I prefer to believe in God, but merely believe it highly likely that a real St. Nicholas was the basis of Santa Claus, Woden was my ancestor (I'm just human, by the way), and Thor wasn't. The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Ganesh are merely personifications of some social convention, as far as I can tell. The method behind my madness is way beyond the scope of this discussion.

    Of course, the real WTF about the story is that the dialog comes up only when the transaction goes over a certain threshold. Are they not concerned about how the tellers are counting the money for smaller transactions?

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to CodeMonkey
    CodeMonkey:
    I investigated and found that one of the telemarketers had discovered that suffixing a bad password with single quote (SQL injection hack) allowed him to open other people's worklists. I quickly notified the developer and the sales managers about the vulnerability, and they got it fixed quick enough.
    A quick fix? Sth like this? if (password.endsWith("\'")) return false;
  • (cs) in reply to Sgt. Preston

    The problem is not VB, it's "VB guy"s.

    When you build the GUI by writing code, then even if you don't consider tab order, the tab order is likely to be connected to the order the controls appear in your code, and if you keep your code halfway organized it'll be somewhat sensible. The problem with the "drag and drop" setup is that the code doesn't end up being halfway organized

  • Richard (unregistered)

    It always begs the question why single purpose effectively kiosks need Windows. You see in shops computers running XP with a 3270 terminal almost full screen and ask why? Wouldn't a 3270 terminal be cheaper? Maybe not as they're not mass produced. Failing that why not some netboot solution that runs nothing but the 32370 terminal, maybe in a Linux console?

    That would be so much cheaper and easier to manage. The PCs on the shop floor wouldn't even need a hard drive! The owner of the system need not even know it's Linux based or whatever other embedded netbootable operating system the developer chooses to use.

    The other WTF - I thought the age of this universe was 3 and a bit Yugas, or about 4 million years ;-)

    CAPTCHA: Waffles, sounds about right!

  • sol (unregistered) in reply to bob

    So do the still make you code via drop down lists? I swear ARGO is like the biggest WTF I have personally had to work with....

    bob:
    sol:
    So is this a COBOL program or an ARGO data program?

    The real WTF is I maintain ARGO data programs. We still can not capture keystrokes to stop this behavior. And the program is so ugly the 3 finger salute is the only way to kill it sometimes.

    captcha muhahaha - what the gods of coding must have been saying when I accepted this job. :)

  • The Almighty Steve (unregistered) in reply to R
    R:
    Science is the wrong tool for a historical question.
    R, I appreciate the creativity you have used to argue your point but I have to say that I'd much prefer science over folklore as keeper of our history. Folklore is subject to far too much interpretation, subversion and incomplete recollection to be of great use in a historical context.

    Do you remember that 3' Salmon you caught last year while fishing in the back-country? Well, we sent a team up to your campsite, uncovered the carcass from that Salmon and it turns out it was actually 2'3". Fanciful? Yes, but the point is that if you leave history to those that have a vested interest in how it is recalled, you're never really going to get the truth; leave it up to science and you're more likely to find out what probably happened.

    R:
    Did God make the world? Was evolution the mechanism of the origin of species? That's historical. Only someone in the know can answer: the point of the story of Job.
    Ouch. This just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific investigative process. You do not need to bear witness to something to satisfactorily determine the cause of its outcome. More to the point, it's ok to say "we don't know what the Universe was like prior to the Big Bang" without assigning God as its Creator in the interim.
    R:
    Personally, I prefer to believe in God
    Good for you (and I mean that without sarcasm or malice); I am consistently impressed by those that can hold steadfast to their beliefs without reason or doubt, despite insurmountable evidence to the contrary. I fully support your need or desire to believe in God, but please, don't mistake that mass-dilusion with fact or history.
    R:
    [I] merely believe it highly likely that a real St. Nicholas was the basis of Santa Claus, Woden was my ancestor (I'm just human, by the way), and Thor wasn't. The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Ganesh are merely personifications of some social convention, as far as I can tell. The method behind my madness is way beyond the scope of this discussion.
    Eloquent and well-stated. This paragraph nearly stopped me from replying (and I still kinda wish I'd listened to that urge)
    R:
    Of course, the real WTF about the story is that the dialog comes up only when the transaction goes over a certain threshold. Are they not concerned about how the tellers are counting the money for smaller transactions?
    Yeah, what's up with that?
  • ~LLama (unregistered) in reply to Stingray
    Stingray:
    The computer's UI shouldn't even be involved in this. The computer should know what bills and coins are being dispensed. An electric eye could detect the removal of a bill and count it automatically. The coin drawers could maintain their own weight and calculate the number of coins removed based on that. Maybe the teller can confirm the total is correct, but if there's the possibility that they'd answer "no" then the system probably just to be engineered more thoroughly.

    To all the people who say "I hate it when users do stuff like this," I say, what exactly is it you hate? The fact that they find your software hard to use? It takes a reasonable amount of intelligence to write software, it takes much more to write software that is easy to use. The problem isn't stupid users...

    What, are you out of your goddamned mind?

    Sure, and my car should know when it's almost out of gas, detect oil in a foreign country, call Bush, wage war, refine the product and fill itself up without me having to notice.

    Why would banks waste a shit ton of money for what would likely be a less than 100% accurate system (What happens if a penny falls in with the dimes, or they have fat fingers that block 'the eye'? Danger!!), when having the lazy little fuckers type it in is so much simpler. Seriously, I love complicated engineering problems, but I have a personal name for over-engineering for stupidity, I call it: 'leveling the ceiling.' See my grandfather was an intelligent man, he fought in WW2 and came back to be a newspaperman, when they were actually journalists. However he had no mechanical or structural sense. None. Sometime during my youth I remember he wanted to add cabinets once to an area that had none. He studied and measured for a while, as my mother and I grew concerned for the safety of our house (he was living with us at the time for medical reasons), he finally announced his intent to install them himself (that would be a trip to the E.R.) but said that first we would have to level the ceiling.. I don't recall if I burst out laughing right away, or kept it together long enough to step away, but I knew that no construction would ever be attempted. Sometimes you can make something far more complicated than he needs to be. Sure you can spend thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars developing, testing and deploying a system like you described, or the lazy bastards who are handing out the money can just tell the computer how much they gave out. With more than 2 hours of practice it would hardly take any extra time at all.

    If it's true, it's a training issue pure and simple. Perhaps systems as well, they shouldn't be able to C-A-D and kill anything. (Actually, if possible, catch C-A-D and have it launch a taskman.exe look alike, which will only list one process, itself ;) -- See now that is over-engineering for a fun reason). I can't see how it got this far, do your job or be fired. I've done (nearly) the same job, and when it involves tracking LARGE AMOUNTS OF CASH, you do it how you're told to do it.

    In the end however I have to agree with several others. I worked retail, it involved a decent bit of 'keypad' work, but not bank level. Even I, in my heyday could absolutely FLY across a keypad, it was purely muscle memory, I never though about it, looked down, or made mistakes, it just happened as fast as the computer could register the key-presses (actually it was an old system, sometimes it had to catch up..) I've also watched plenty of people at many banks in my town who use software like this do the same thing, it's not complicated (at least with their software, but his can't be THAT bad..) This is either horse$#!&, the tellers are pushing 90, or they're both lazy AND obnoxious.

    CAPTCHA: cognac -- Hmm, yeah I've got nothing..

  • Seen that (unregistered) in reply to NiceWTF
    NiceWTF:
    Al:
    Your next task will wind up being removal of the power button or encasing their terminal so they don't have access to the power cords.

    Yes. The users will then proceed to trip the fuse.

    I worked somewhere where this happened. There was a huge mechanical document retrieval machine on one side of the wall. Our office was on the other side of the wall. Every so often the power would go out on one side of our office, four computers. After this had happened several times, we asked the facility manager to investigate, who told us that a fuse was being tripped.

    Eventually we found out that the button to stop the rotation of the document retrieval system did not work properly, and had not worked properly for some time. So the users were SHOVING THEIR ARMS INTO THE MACHINE, which triggered a safety cut-out and stopped it rotating. This was also tripping the fuse.

    It boggles the mind, not just that users would rather risk their limbs than report a malfunctioning device and get it fixed, but that they were actually teaching each other and new recruits to do this.

  • creative type (unregistered) in reply to ~LLama

    "I can't see how it got this far, do your job or be fired. I've done (nearly) the same job, and when it involves tracking LARGE AMOUNTS OF CASH, you do it how you're told to do it."

    The real WTF is why someone would become a bank teller if they didn't want to write/type lots of numbers into lots of forms, and if they didn't want to follow detailed directions exactly, all the time.

    Isn't that what the whole job is ABOUT?

  • Bobbo (unregistered) in reply to ahnfelt

    That's not sarcasm; it's irony.

  • Bobbo (unregistered) in reply to ahnfelt
    ahnfelt:
    The Creationist talk was obviously a joke. It's incredible how hard it is for some people to spot sarcasm in writing...

    That's not sarcasm; it's irony.

    (argh)

  • Bobbo (unregistered) in reply to The Almighty Steve
    The Almighty Steve:
    There is no scientific way to test for the existence of God (if there is, I'd say the onus is on you to prove it), ergo, scientific evidence can not point to the existence of God.

    How convenient - you place the onus on Rick to prove to you something that, by your own admission, is unprovable, before you'll consider changing your beliefs. At least it makes life easy for you, I guess...

  • Cheezus H. Crust (unregistered)

    Dude, 6000 years? I have laundry older than that

  • ant (unregistered)
  • Bryan (unregistered)

    I worked at a bank as a teller and it is a pretty outrageously boring and shitey job.

    We'd do anything to get out of work. I remember emailing flash games back and forth until they realized we were doing it.

    Proxies were the only way to get on the net.

    I swear I would have been fired soon if I hadn't quit.

  • sketchy it guy in the corner (unregistered)

    WTF (why the...) do users have access to Task Manager and Ctrl-Alt-Delete?

Leave a comment on “Assisted Processicide”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article