• Georgem (unregistered) in reply to J
    J:
    The part that's bringing in the feminism is the "especially when it's directed towards women" part. Violence in the work place shouldnt have a worse responce if the victim is female instead of male and vise versa.

    Isn't that the exact opposite of feminism? Furthering the idea that women are the weaker sex, and need special handling?

    Dan is in a nice position now. He can make real, actual, verbal threats to her now, and simply refer people to her previous failures to understand. "Oh, she's at it again, is she?"

    I'm off to write a genetic algorithm to work out exactly what phrases I can use to subliminally insult senior managers in emails

  • Georgem (unregistered) in reply to Rich
    Rich:
    <sarcasm> The real WTF is that proper English would be "but the code between Tammie Burns and us." Then the whole issue could have been avoided!

    Obviously, he didn't listen to his mother when he said, "me and Jim are going to the candy store," and mom would reply, "No..., Jim and I..."

    But kudos for using "us" instead of "we!" </sarcasm>

    On a related note, years ago I got an email from a colleague who had been coding all night:

    if brain comes in without me in the morning, tell him to come back and get me

    After staring at it a while, I finally realized he meant Brian, who was normally his ride into work.

    "Go next door and see how Old Mrs Smith is" "Mrs Smith says it's none of your business how old she is"

  • Georgem (unregistered) in reply to Eric Rehmeyer
    Eric Rehmeyer:
    Violence against women is never funny. Epic fail.

    Sensitive guy posturing has been medically proven to not actually get you laid, after all

    Epic fail

  • Kempeth (unregistered)

    tammie burns probably also helped her uncle jack off a horse...

  • how I love management (unregistered) in reply to Georgem
    Georgem:
    I'm off to write a genetic algorithm to work out exactly what phrases I can use to subliminally insult senior managers in emails

    Post them here once you've found them, we could all use them somedays.

  • Robert Kosten (unregistered)

    To all those people who think the image is inappropriate:

    I can't fathom what would lead anyone to consider that image inappropriate, quite the contrary, it is a perfectly fitting humorous nod to the content of the story... Really people, grow up.

    CAPTCHA: gravis (Wouldn't gravitas have been more appropriate?)

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    Well, you get exactly what you pay for when you hire female "coders" - crap code and menstrual hissy fits.

  • Adam Jorgensen (unregistered)

    This is why I don't want to work in a corporate enviornment. Too many idiots around.

  • m0ffx (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    About 1-2 years back the Left started calling climate change skeptics "deniers"...
    I agree, "denier" is too strong. But "skeptic" is perhaps too weak.
    Oh you mean the reports written by scientists working for the government who get their funding from the government
    Err, no. Evidently you don't even know what the IPCC is. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

    To anyone skeptical that humans are causing climate change, consider the following:

    • Humans are burning huge amounts of coal, oil and gas.
    • Burning coal, oil, and gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    • Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat escaping from earth, warming the planet.
    • Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution.

    Given those observed facts, give me a reason why that WON'T change our climate.

  • (cs) in reply to Dan Wiebe
    Dan Wiebe:
    Tammie Burns was not the developer responsible for the problem. I don't know who that developer was. She was the manager of the group responsible for producing the data, and I was in the group responsible for consuming it. Between the two groups, it went into Never-Never Land and came back, and somewhere in Never-Never Land was the place where the CR character was helpfully being added.

    That's why I said "the code between us and Tammie Burns" rather than "Tammie Burns' code."

    Just sayin'...

    Thanks for clarifying, I was wondering why the article seemed to contradict itself about where the error was.

  • Michael (unregistered) in reply to ZaM

    Unless "Tammie Burns" is the name of a system component as well as a developer, the much better line is to name the component or interface that needs to be beaten into submission. It avoids all kinds of misunderstandings and discourages anthropomorphism -- code is not people, it does not behave like people do (code is even worse at DWIM than people are), and thinking otherwise makes it easy to make logical mistakes.

  • (cs) in reply to hatterson
    hatterson:
    "no explanation except anthropomorphic sources" is, at best, theory. Go ahead prove that increased solar flares haven't caused a slightly higher temperature which has caused the ocean to retain less CO2.

    easy. we're currently at an unusually long solar minimum. carbon load continues to increase, average global temperature continues to increase.

    it's fairly easy to support "no explanation except anthropomorphic sources".

    the 50% increase is even more easily proven (ice cores for the win)

  • (cs) in reply to Kazan
    Kazan:
    Matt:
    Kazan:
    a lot of people here don't know the difference between "Feminism" and "Feminazism"

    that's ok.. the Feminazis don't know the difference either... but BOY are the real Feminists ever pissed about it.

    (feminism was about gender equality, not about "omg men suck")

    Just like how Environmentalism was about the environment, but now it's nothing more than an excuse to be used against capitalism and for Statism.

    So when I tell people I'm an Environmentalist they react like I'm some Leftie. That's when it's helpful to say "I'm a REAL environmentalist. That means I actually do spend time in the woods and want to preserve them; not just stand in front of an EPA office with banners and slogans chanting about mother Gia."

    *sigh*

    your first sentence makes me thing you're a Climate Change Denier (The modern Flat Earther). Sad. A real environmentalist (like you claim to be) would realize that a 50% increase in what is the steady state of the carbon load in earths atmosphere since the industrial revolution, with no explanation except anthropomorphic sources, is a problem.

    Instead you deny it and whine about how it's against capitalism and is pro-statism.

    STOP Confusing Laissez-Faire and Capitalism. Pollution is a cost of production, right now everyone is externalizing it, all we're talking about is forcing them to pay for that cost instead of shucking it off on everyone. That company paying that cost will get passed onto the consumer sucking up the product. Maybe that will lead to better production efficiency, less glutanous consumption, etc. I fail to see how merely ENFORCING THE CONCEPT OF TRUE CAPITALISM is "anti-capitalism". Oh right, because you think Laissez-Faire is a form of capitalism, it's not. Laissez-Faire is a form of corporatism (that "Statism" you complained about)

    STOP listening to Rush Limbaugh and the rest of those hypocritical America hating scum sucking bottom feeders.

    and Stop confusing New agers (who often are environmentalists) with the Environmental Movement.

    You are a fail blackhole.

    (1) "hey guys I like the environment but don't go to protests" (2) "AGGHHHGGHHG YOU HORRIBLE PERSON YOU DENY <something that wasn't even mentioned in the first post> RAGE RAGE RAGE UGLY RIGHT-WINGER RUSH LIMBAUGH ECONOMICS" (3) ??? (4) profit!

    No seriously, how exactly did you get that train of thought working? the original post and your hysterical rant replying to it aren't even on the same continent.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    ...

    when in fact there isn't any scientific consensus on climate change. Granted, there may be a majority opinion, but that hardy makes for written-in-stone-fact as history shows.

    if by "majority" you mean "every climate scientist on the planet except those paid to deny it, then some scientists who don't know shit about climate because it's not their field"

    then yes you're right - there is a majority

    "consensus" doesn't mean "unanimous" - there is always going to be some crackpot, like you, who thinks they know what they're talking about but don't.

    Go back under the rock you came from Dittohead

  • (cs) in reply to Jack
    Jack:
    In which case they should have called it "Gender Equality". The word feminism immediately implies that it is pro-female, not pro-equality.

    I myself have pointed this out, it is indeed a poor choice of a name...

    sadly the rest of your post goes on to display a lack of knowledge of standing starie decisis in the united states in relation to marriage, affirmative action, etc. You show an especial lack of knowledge when it comes to affirmative action.

    I challenge you to learn what it actually is (hint: quotas have been illegal since well before I was born... quotas were never the intention. and no you cannot get in trouble just for having demographics that don't match your community, someone can ask you "why don't they match?" but if you can give a reasonable answer "all the most qualified candidates were [insert race here]" then you're in the green)

  • Single User (unregistered) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    Anonymous Coward:
    About 1-2 years back the Left started calling climate change skeptics "deniers"...
    I agree, "denier" is too strong.
    That depends. For those who reject the idea because it's not proven with mathematical rigor or because 'god will help', "denier" is perfectly appropriate. And they have been the most audible on the non-IPCC side in the last years.
    But "skeptic" is perhaps too weak.
    Oh you mean the reports written by scientists working for the government who get their funding from the government
    Err, no. Evidently you don't even know what the IPCC is. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

    To anyone skeptical that humans are causing climate change, consider the following:

    • Humans are burning huge amounts of coal, oil and gas.
    • Burning coal, oil, and gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    As does breathing ;)
    * Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat escaping from earth, warming the planet.
    * Once the concentration has reached a certain level, more carbon dioxide doesn't increase the greenhouse effect anymore. (That is, to the best of my knowledge, actually true, but can only be used to question the projected extent of warming.) * Methane is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so the effects of carbon dioxide are negligible. (The first part is, again to the best of my knowledge, true, the second has good chances of becoming true if the swamps release their methane reservoirs. But that is no reason to believe global warming won't happen either, just to question the causes.) * Higher temperatures lead to more cloud-formation, which lessens the amount of sunlight reaching the lower parts of the atmosphere, thus the greater greenhouse effect keeps a higher percentage of a smaller amount of total heat within the earth's atmosphere. By an analogous mechanism, the increasing concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere counteract the increasing greenhouse effect. (Again, true, definitely mitigating effects, but not nullifying.)
    * Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution.
    * Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than today in the past, before the human race even evolved, so the Industrial Revolution cannot have anything to do with today's levels ;)
    Given those observed facts, give me a reason why that WON'T change our climate.
    Shifting the burden of proof, are we? YOU (IPCC) say it will change, you have to provide evidence for that claim. What? You already did(*)? Shit, let me think, how can I ignore it?

    (*)Though, to be honest, there's a tendency among (some) of the IPCC panelists and their associates to sell theoretically possible worst case scenarios as established fact in order to pressure governments into action.

  • (cs) in reply to kastein
    kastein:
    (1) "hey guys I like the environment but don't go to protests" (2) "AGGHHHGGHHG YOU HORRIBLE PERSON YOU DENY <something that wasn't even mentioned in the first post> RAGE RAGE RAGE UGLY RIGHT-WINGER RUSH LIMBAUGH ECONOMICS" (3) ??? (4) profit!

    No seriously, how exactly did you get that train of thought working? the original post and your hysterical rant replying to it aren't even on the same continent.

    A) A stern lecture is hardly "hysterical" B) He quite clearly implied that he was a "Global Warming Denier" through his language.. perhaps the less political active american or the non-american wouldn't pick up on the language pattern that implies it.. but it's pretty obvious to someone used to listening to politics in the States [the dead give away is his bitching about it being anticapitalist/prostatist] C) I don't care if he doesn't attend protests, I don't. I do care that he quite clearly is walking around spouting about a subject he doesn't know jackshit about as if he knew what he was talking about.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    Anonymous Coward:
    About 1-2 years back the Left started calling climate change skeptics "deniers"...
    I agree, "denier" is too strong. But "skeptic" is perhaps too weak.
    Oh you mean the reports written by scientists working for the government who get their funding from the government
    Err, no. Evidently you don't even know what the IPCC is. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

    To anyone skeptical that humans are causing climate change, consider the following:

    • Humans are burning huge amounts of coal, oil and gas.
    • Burning coal, oil, and gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    • Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat escaping from earth, warming the planet.
    • Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution.

    Given those observed facts, give me a reason why that WON'T change our climate.

    Because Jesus will return and carry all good Christians off to heaven. At that point, any trees left standing will have been wasted!

    ;)

  • (cs) in reply to Single User
    Single User:
    * Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than today in the past, before the human race even evolved, so the Industrial Revolution cannot have anything to do with today's levels ;)

    was that supposed to be a snarky joke?

    at no point in the last 400mya has it been higher or growing even as fast. Yes previously [to the last 400mya] it had been even higher you know what happened? The planet wouldn't have been very hospitable to 6 billion humans. The Carboniferous period... most of the land was underneath epicontinental seas.

    but i think you were trying to make a snarky joke... it's hard to tell these days.

  • Chris (unregistered)

    The real WTF is using fixed-length files for communication.

  • (cs) in reply to titter.com
    titter.com:
    People can't even read anymore. This is so pathetic beyond any words that I don't longer even feel angered by the fact that we're doomed.
    Why bother reading? The writing is usually so ghastly and/or vapid that neither meaning nor pleasure can be derived from it without a disproportionate amount of effort.

    No, I'm not going to bother ranting about it here - the futility of the attempt would be enough to make me want to be strangled by someone.

  • (cs)
    Tammie:
    I don't think
    Tammie:
    violence (even jokingly) belongs in the workplace, especially when it's directed towards women.
  • (cs) in reply to Single User
    Single User:
    * Once the concentration has reached a certain level, more carbon dioxide doesn't increase the greenhouse effect anymore. (That is, to the best of my knowledge, actually true, but can only be used to question the projected extent of warming.)
    Plus there's no evidence that we're anywhere near that limit.
    Single User:
    * Methane is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so the effects of carbon dioxide are negligible. (The first part is, again to the best of my knowledge, true, the second has good chances of becoming true if the swamps release their methane reservoirs. But that is no reason to believe global warming won't happen either, just to question the causes.)
    Indeed the first is true, but methane is also present in much lower concentrations and decomposes pretty rapidly (I vaguely remember hearing the phrase “10 years” in connection with this, but can't remember for sure) to carbon dioxide.
    Single User:
    * Higher temperatures lead to more cloud-formation, which lessens the amount of sunlight reaching the lower parts of the atmosphere, thus the greater greenhouse effect keeps a higher percentage of a smaller amount of total heat within the earth's atmosphere. By an analogous mechanism, the increasing concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere counteract the increasing greenhouse effect. (Again, true, definitely mitigating effects, but not nullifying.)
    Plus water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, and the degree to which clouds help depends on the height in the atmosphere where they form. Of course, sulphur dioxide is also relevant here through aerosol formation (so forming more clouds and increasing the Earth's overall albedo) despite which we don't really want that around either, as it causes big respiratory problems and acid rain.

    In short, while we might not have a total proof that we're causing global warming that is a threat to the human race (of course, overall the Earth itself is just fine) we've now got a preponderance of the evidence in favor of that statement. Not acting to try to reduce CO2 output is, bluntly, one heck of a bet to take with our future. If Rush Limbaugh and the Big Coal lobby have a magic wand to wave to make all that bad stuff go away, I encourage them to wave it right now! I'd love to go back to consuming without bad conscience. I just don't believe that such magic wands actually exist, so I'm going to take those actions that I think can work…

  • Single User (unregistered) in reply to Kazan
    Kazan:
    Single User:
    * Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than today in the past, before the human race even evolved, so the Industrial Revolution cannot have anything to do with today's levels ;)

    was that supposed to be a snarky joke?

    The ";)" wasn't hint enough?

  • Georgem (unregistered)

    TRWTF is "WTF does all this climate nonsense have to do with anything?"

    CAPTCHA: tego, which I've just decided is a neologism for "endlessly tiresome, protracted, tangential pissing match for the sake of it". Spooky, eh

  • Lego (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    ubersoldat:
    Man, that girl is stupid. Go talk to the guy and see what he was talking about. Instead you go and file a report with your boss. Stupid bitch almost got the poor guy fired after fixing her stupid error 'cuz she can't read. And yes, if I was fired because something like this I would wait outside and bitch-slap her... after suing their assess.

    Given that she clearly believed (wrongly) that a threat of physical violence had been made against her, you think the best course of action would be to go talk to the person threating her?

    o_O WTF?

    If someone is threatening you with physical violence do you really want to go visit them and provide them with the opportunity to carry out their threats?

    Sounds like someone was beaten with a stupid stick.

    -Lego

  • O'Boy (unregistered) in reply to Dan Wiebe
    Dan Wiebe:
    Other than the modification above, the poop is straight enough for the consumption of folks who aren't actually named in the post (I and Tammie go by our real names; all the other names were generated by Alex) and who didn't actually work for the company (which isn't mentioned by name) at the time. Alex perhaps makes me out to be a touch more heroic than I actually was, but I won't complain about that.
    TRWTF is Alex's failure to anonymize Tammie's name. OK, so the email in the story wasn't in fact offensive, but many of the (completely predictable) jokes at her expense in the comments very much are. And it's now the top hit on Google for anyone searching for her name. Not good.

    If it were me, I'd have redacted her name before I even submitted the story. Hope she forgives you for this one, Dan.

  • JL (unregistered)

    It could have been worse...

    The code between us and Tammie Burns needs serious analysis because of all the bug reports.

    The code between us and Tammie Burns needs to be followed closely; I've been spending my nights and weekends tracing and have yet to see anything interesting, so I'm looking for additional volunteers.

    The code between us and Tammie Burns is exposing private functions to the end users. This is against industry standard practice, because it encourages writing code with unnecessary coupling.

    The code between us and Tammie Burns needs to be taken out; I have several contractors I can recommend.

    The code between us and Tammie Burns needs to be disassembled; it will be easy if we use the right tool.

  • Dan T. (unregistered)

    It's my general observation that people who reply to e-mail with top-posted replies over fullquotes almost universally show poor reading comprehension with regard to the content of the fullquoted material.

  • laoreet (unregistered) in reply to Kef Schecter
    Kef Schecter:
    To everybody who's saying that "especially violence against women" is feminism run amok, you seem to be forgetting the point that, on average, men are stronger than women. Sure, there are some women who are stronger than many men are, but, in general, men are stronger, so women are at a distinct disadvantage in that area.

    Now, I'm not saying that you guys are completely wrong. Yes, violence against a man is just as bad against a woman. I'm just saying that demanding equal treatment presumes that men and women are equal, and in this respect, they simply aren't -- at least, not on average.

    As someone who trained actively in a unisex martial arts club for about five years, I can definitely say that strength plays a rather small roll in hand to hand combat. Endurance and durability and a strong psyche is what makes a hand to hand fighter great. All three are things in which women have a natural advantage over men.

    Its just that women are brought up to not hit back. Once you get that silly crap out of them, they are just as good fighters as men, if not better.

    And I find it annoying that people keep reiterating this annoying misconception thus keeping women down.

  • IHazYourCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to Kazan
    Kazan:
    sadly the rest of your post goes on to display a lack of knowledge of standing starie decisis in the united states in relation to marriage, affirmative action, etc.
    Newsflash: the United States of America are not the only countries where this site is read.
  • Groxx (unregistered) in reply to Dan Wiebe

    Another example of people not reading. Methinks some people aren't seeing the lessons in the stories? I caught the difference in the phrasing and wondered about that. Thanks for the clear-up :)

  • Groxx (unregistered) in reply to laoreet
    laoreet:
    Kef Schecter:
    To everybody who's saying that "especially violence against women" is feminism run amok, you seem to be forgetting the point that, on average, men are stronger than women. Sure, there are some women who are stronger than many men are, but, in general, men are stronger, so women are at a distinct disadvantage in that area.

    Now, I'm not saying that you guys are completely wrong. Yes, violence against a man is just as bad against a woman. I'm just saying that demanding equal treatment presumes that men and women are equal, and in this respect, they simply aren't -- at least, not on average.

    As someone who trained actively in a unisex martial arts club for about five years, I can definitely say that strength plays a rather small roll in hand to hand combat. Endurance and durability and a strong psyche is what makes a hand to hand fighter great. All three are things in which women have a natural advantage over men.

    Its just that women are brought up to not hit back. Once you get that silly crap out of them, they are just as good fighters as men, if not better.

    And I find it annoying that people keep reiterating this annoying misconception thus keeping women down.

    So, what you're saying is:

    Men may be strong, but it doesn't matter, women are superior in every other way
    (specifically related to fighting)

    and yet

    She's a moron for not having a spine
    (keep in mind that this is a fictional character)

    and to top it all off

    Would you quit repressing us already?

    So, you simultaneously insult men in a much more direct way than was being implied, imply she just needs to get rid of her silly crap (which is what was implied by the comments you're taking offense at), and go out of your way to make a single line of thought against a fictional character who was displaying excessive idiocy into an attack against women in general.

    Feminism run amok. Q.E.D.

  • Groxx (unregistered) in reply to Groxx
    Groxx:
    and to top it all off
    Would you quit repressing women already?
    Apologies, removed single assumption of gender.
  • Sr Axxhole (unregistered)

    char outp = comment[i++]; if (outp == '\n' && frist) { writeByte( '\r' ); frist=0; } writeByte( outp ); // beatTammieBurns();

  • DysgraphicProgrammer (unregistered) in reply to hatterson
    hatterson:
    All I really want is to have people call the facts, observations and experimental results "science" call the extrapolations and simulations which are based on sound data "projections" or "theories" and call the random extrapolations based on virtually nothing "trash".

    The majority of what Al Gore proposed is under the "trash" category. "Global Warming is occurring" is the science category. The effects of this are either the theory category or the trash category, depending on the specific effect. "a 50% increase in what is the steady state of the carbon load in earths atmosphere" is the science category (I'm assuming that's actually a valid stat, I don't care enough to verify it) "no explanation except anthropomorphic sources" is, at best, theory. Go ahead prove that increased solar flares haven't caused a slightly higher temperature which has caused the ocean to retain less CO2.

    You want Science? Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/psohz4 Directly from Science Magazine, a peer reviewed journal. This is a very non-political journal, the most general and respected in the nation. Stuff does not get here until it has been extensively discussed in more specific journals. These results have probably been peer-reviewed several times.

  • Steve the Cynic (unregistered) in reply to laoreet
    laoreet:
    ...

    Its just that women are brought up to not hit back. Once you get that silly crap out of them, they are just as good fighters as men, if not better.

    ...

    Second this. My experience (a very self-defencey style of jujitsu) is that the smaller and lighter women actually tend to be nastier fighters to make up for their smaller size, but the same usually applies to smaller men. Where men usually score higher is in numbers and the fraction of them who continue after a couple of weeks.

    But I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the women who do stick with it.

  • Matt (unregistered)

    So let me get this straight. Once you politicize a subject, it doesn't get skewed?

    Why WOULDN'T you be even MORE skeptical of something once Congressmen get involved? There's a lot of money on the line in terms of funding their pet projects. Given that incentive, how can you believe anything out of a politician's mouth in terms of global warming.

    Oops, wait, "global warming"... Earth might not be warming. Might even be cooling. Shit. How do we cover our asses? Oh I know, let's call it "climate change". That's a catch-all with which we can't be proven wrong because the climate is always changing. Leftist Win!

    Also, I seem to recall hearing during Jimmy Carter's days that America would run out of places to bury its trash and we'd all be living in some post apocalyptic Mad Max world by 2000. What ever happened to that?

    And here's some info about the IPCC for all you government loving sycophants: "The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations." What part of that doesn't scream "bias towards your sugar daddy, which is government". Yeah, the UN sure isn't a highly politicized body....

  • (cs) in reply to laoreet
    laoreet:
    As someone who trained actively in a unisex martial arts club for about five years, I can definitely say that strength plays a rather small roll in hand to hand combat. Endurance and durability and a strong psyche is what makes a hand to hand fighter great. All three are things in which women have a natural advantage over men.

    Its just that women are brought up to not hit back. Once you get that silly crap out of them, they are just as good fighters as men, if not better.

    And I find it annoying that people keep reiterating this annoying misconception thus keeping women down.

    No, strength plays a small role in martial arts. If two entirely untrained people just try to beat each other up, I'll wager strength will play a significant part in the outcome.

  • Grae (unregistered) in reply to titter.com
    titter.com:
    ... This is so pathetic beyond any words that I don't longer even feel angered by the fact that we're doomed. ...

    God damn it, I just want to strangle someone.

    This is my favorite part.

  • (cs) in reply to Jack
    Jack:
    ...mean and women...
    Freudian slip? :)
  • (cs) in reply to how I love management
    how I love management:
    Georgem:
    I'm off to write a genetic algorithm to work out exactly what phrases I can use to subliminally insult senior managers in emails
    Post them here once you've found them, we could all use them somedays.
    I believe what you really meant to say was:

    Plz send me teh algorithmz.

  • (cs) in reply to IHazYourCheezburger
    IHazYourCheezburger:
    Newsflash: the United States of America are not the only countries where this site is read.
    Did you mean to say The United Countries of America?
  • (cs) in reply to Eric Rehmeyer
    Eric Rehmeyer:
    Violence against women is never funny. Epic fail.
    Epic PC.
  • csm (unregistered) in reply to Code Dependent
    Code Dependent:
    IHazYourCheezburger:
    Newsflash: the United States of America are not the only countries where this site is read.
    Did you mean to say The United Countries of America?

    Whoah, getting a little ahead of yourself there. Maybe 2 or 3 more Bushes down the road and that'll be the reality.

  • (cs) in reply to Matt
    Matt:
    Kazan:
    a lot of people here don't know the difference between "Feminism" and "Feminazism"

    that's ok.. the Feminazis don't know the difference either... but BOY are the real Feminists ever pissed about it.

    (feminism was about gender equality, not about "omg men suck")

    Just like how Environmentalism was about the environment, but now it's nothing more than an excuse to be used against capitalism and for Statism.

    So when I tell people I'm an Environmentalist they react like I'm some Leftie. That's when it's helpful to say "I'm a REAL environmentalist. That means I actually do spend time in the woods and want to preserve them; not just stand in front of an EPA office with banners and slogans chanting about mother Gia."

    Then you want to say you're a conservationist... but then again, some leftie will think you said "conservative" and spray-paint your leather jacket.
  • (cs) in reply to Kazan
    Kazan:
    Matt:
    Kazan:
    a lot of people here don't know the difference between "Feminism" and "Feminazism"

    that's ok.. the Feminazis don't know the difference either... but BOY are the real Feminists ever pissed about it.

    (feminism was about gender equality, not about "omg men suck")

    Just like how Environmentalism was about the environment, but now it's nothing more than an excuse to be used against capitalism and for Statism.

    So when I tell people I'm an Environmentalist they react like I'm some Leftie. That's when it's helpful to say "I'm a REAL environmentalist. That means I actually do spend time in the woods and want to preserve them; not just stand in front of an EPA office with banners and slogans chanting about mother Gia."

    *sigh*

    your first sentence makes me thing you're a Climate Change Denier (The modern Flat Earther).

    And it just goes downhill from there. Don't waste your time, folks.

  • (cs) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    hatterson:
    All I really want is to have people call the facts, observations and experimental results "science" call the extrapolations and simulations which are based on sound data "projections" or "theories" and call the random extrapolations based on virtually nothing "trash".

    The majority of what Al Gore proposed is under the "trash" category. "Global Warming is occurring" is the science category. The effects of this are either the theory category or the trash category, depending on the specific effect. "a 50% increase in what is the steady state of the carbon load in earths atmosphere" is the science category (I'm assuming that's actually a valid stat, I don't care enough to verify it) "no explanation except anthropomorphic sources" is, at best, theory. Go ahead prove that increased solar flares haven't caused a slightly higher temperature which has caused the ocean to retain less CO2.

    READ THE IPCC REPORTS

    THE GLOBAL MEAN HAS REMAINED STEADY SINCE 1998

  • (cs) in reply to m0ffx
    m0ffx:
    Anonymous Coward:
    About 1-2 years back the Left started calling climate change skeptics "deniers"...
    I agree, "denier" is too strong. But "skeptic" is perhaps too weak.
    Oh you mean the reports written by scientists working for the government who get their funding from the government
    Err, no. Evidently you don't even know what the IPCC is. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

    To anyone skeptical that humans are causing climate change, consider the following:

    • Humans are burning huge amounts of coal, oil and gas.
    • Burning coal, oil, and gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    • Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat escaping from earth, warming the planet.
    • Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution.

    Given those observed facts, give me a reason why that WON'T change our climate.

    If the increase in carbon dioxide isn't enough to change the atmosphere? Kind of like how placing a gram of arsenic in a town's water supply won't be enough to poison them all.

    Not saying that is the situation, but you asked for a reason.

  • (cs) in reply to Lame
    You're surprised? Have you READ the daily WTF? While it's certainly entertaining, you can't believe most of what is written. In the name of creative writing and "anonymization" they butcher most entertaining and true stories into a mess that is often quite far from any truth.

    I don't 100% agree. A submission of my (no pun intended) got published too: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/That-Wouldve-Been-an-Option-Too.aspx While the story had indeed been rewritten, it was still very much what I had written. The whole line of the WTF was there, the opening, the things that happened and finally revealing the WTF. Only a lot of details where changed. The published story opened with a character description of the anti-hero, which I hadn't written anything about in my submission.

    Surprisingly, it was quite an accurate description of the actual person involved. Either the author who rewrote my submission was very good at reading between the lines and deducting personalities, or it was just a lucky shot. It did make my day though :)

    The problem is when some details actually matter to the story. In my case the author changed some of the details of the optimizations that were actually being done and somehow these made it sound like it was a good thing that was being done. A lot of people thus responded that they agreed with the anti-hero and didn't understood the WTF. The whole point was though that Wilhelm (the anti-hero) was just trying to cramp too much in too little space. Like trying to put too much luggage in a suitcase that's simply to small, and when there is absolutely no reason to not get yourself a somewhat larger suitcase.

    So I have mixed feelings about this re-writing. For one I now know that the stories here aren't completely made up. The story published -was- the story I posted, but especially in development the actual point of a story can be subtle and the slightest detail can break or make this point.

Leave a comment on “Beaten Into Submission”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article