Pathetic life of Software Engineer

[blackcoder41]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meojjJXcdNI

[1yR4jE8b]

LMFAO

That reminds me, my girlfriend tells me when we cuddle at night and I'm fast asleep I sometimes tap my fingers on her body like a Guitar Hero controller >.<

[Albatross]

It seems like the following code:

#include <relationship.h>
int main()
{
   Programmer loneprogrammer;
   loneprogrammer.Relationship.Partner = Girlfriend cutie;
   return 0;
}

Still returns the sterotypical error of:

Line 5: Invalid conversion from Female to Computer*

-Albatross

[blackcoder41]

That should be a syntax error at line 5.

[helios]

darkestfright: Did you forget the "if you know what I mean"?

[chrisname]

At first I was like >:^l
But then I was like <:^O
Finally, I was like <:^D

[blackcoder41]

Hey guys, I just want to share this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZSW-QNs0Is&

Edit:
Ooops, wrong link.. I wanted to share the Ms Paint version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU

[Duthomhas]

Holy shnizzle!

faen5863 wrote:

You just took a chicken and turned it into the mona lisa.
Holy $&!^!

I gotta say, I just got off of FaceBook. Melissa, who is sitting six feet away at her PC, who just PMed me asking if I wanted to join her for a "chick check" (to make sure the baby chickens are still OK in the basement, actually... but yes, probably maybe not that too), and responding to all the "happy birthday"s and "felis cumpleaños"es (and finally giving up and doing a single "thanks for all the happy birthdays" with the caveat that old fogeys can't respond too quickly...) -- where was I? -- she thought it was great too!

:-]

[edit]

BTW, on a more serious note. I hope you all know that nuclear power is evil. Please fight it. http://www.unplugsalem.org/

And no, I have not been hijacked. C++ == most of C².

[helios]

http://www.unplugsalem.org/

Aarg! I see someone subscribes to the "all wavelengths of the visible electromagnetic spectrum on black" school of web design.

[blackcoder41]

Nice web design. Red, green, yellow, black, oh gosh..

[helios]

Excuse me while I go improve my design of the fussion-powered-web-enabled hair dryer.

[chrisname]

OMFG marquee tags! Srs business guys!

@Duoas,
Nuclear power might be dangerous and it may well kill animals, but so does burning coal, oil, LPG or anything else. Regardless of what you burn or react someone is going to object to it. Using nuclear power is cleaner for the atmosphere than burning oil.

What we should be doing is taking a leaf out of Brazil's book and burning alcohol (they make it from sugar canes). It's relatively cheap, efficient and clean.

[S6k9GNh0]

There are cleaner alternatives such as solar power and wind power. They give much less at once though and its difficult to power our transportations on such powerless things.

NOTE: Damn my schools censorship web-filter. I need to setup a tunnel or something...

[helios]

What we should be doing is taking a leaf out of Brazil's book and burning alcohol (they make it from sugar canes). It's relatively cheap, efficient and clean.

But how much energy does it take to make that alcohol (since unlike coal, it's not naturally available, and it doesn't produce as much energy as the same mass in nuclear energy fuel)?

[chrisname]

I don't know, but it clearly works for Brazil. I think they use it to power cars and things (instead of petroleum or gasoline).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

Anyway, personally, I'm for using whatever is the most efficient, as long as it's not dangerous in itself (nuclear power's only dangerous when people ignore rules or use it to purposely kill people).

If biofuels don't work we could always figure out how to utilize nuclear fusion... or ask that idiot Dan Brown to be god for a bit so he can give us some of his magic anti-matter*.

Note: it's not that I don't think anti-matter exists, it's that I find it hard to believe that it would produce the ridiculous amounts of energy Brown describes in his stupid book (which even has a "facts" page that should really be entitled "what I'll pretend are facts to give my book credibility which are really just exaggerations based on the half-assed research I spent all of two minutes doing").

CERN wrote:

There is no possibility to use antimatter as energy ‘source’. Unlike solar energy, coal or oil, antimatter does not occur in nature; we first have to make every single antiparticle, and we have to invest (much) more energy than we get back during annihilation.
---
No, even more research will not change this situation fundamentally; antimatter is certainly not able to solve our energy problems. First of all, you need energy to make antimatter (E=mc2) and unfortunately you do not get the same amount of energy back out of it. (See above, the loss factors are enormous.)

Furthermore, the conversion from energy to matter and antimatter particles follows certain laws of nature, which also allow the production of many other, but very short-lived particles and antiparticles (e.g. muons, pions, neutrinos). These particles decay rapidly during the production process, and their energy is lost.

Antimatter could only become a source of energy if you happened to find a large amount of antimatter lying around somewhere (e.g. in a distant galaxy), in the same way we find oil and oxygen lying around on Earth. But as far as we can see (billions of light years), the universe is entirely made of normal matter, and antimatter has to be painstakingly created.

By the way, this shows that the symmetry between matter and antimatter as stated above does not seem to hold at very high energies, such as shortly after the Big Bang, as otherwise there should be as much matter as antimatter in the Universe. Future research might tell us is how this asymmetry came about.

Paraphrase:
Dan Brown is a moron.

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html

[z05DSL3A]

...figure out how to utilize nuclear fusion

That's a long way off.

[Duthomhas]

Despite my father-in-law's horrible web-design skills, the site is useful.

chrisname wrote:

Nuclear power might be dangerous and it may well kill animals, but so does burning coal, oil, LPG or anything else. Regardless of what you burn or react someone is going to object to it. Using nuclear power is cleaner for the atmosphere than burning oil.

Nonsense. Nuclear power is not safe, it is not cleaner, it is not well-contained, it requires the use of coal or oil for pre- and post-processing, its environmental/atmospheric contamination has a half-life of thousands of years, and it is only cost-effective/efficient when you discount most of the cost to taxpayers and ignore everything that doesn't have to do with the actual nuclear fission.

It is a blight.

There are plenty of superior technologies: wind, water, thermal, solar, etc.

[Bazzy]

What about attaching dynamos to 10,000 hamster wheels?

[Albatross]

What about attaching dynamos to 10,000 hamster wheels?

Who's going to clean up fecal matter of the hamsters? Actually, I'm sure this would be a wonderful job for illegal immigrants...

@Duoas: How is is not cleaner? How is it not well-contained? And as for the used of coal or oil for pre- and post-processing, I'm pretty sure the power generated by the nuclear plant could deal with that. The contamination only occurs when a leak occurs, and when it does, then it does have one helluva half-life, indeed.

And the superior technologies require coal and oil for assembly and maintenance, and a failure of a hydroelectric plant may also be catastrophic. Virtually all hydroelectric plants also cause severe damage to the environment just after their assembly. Solar panels take huge amounts of space to generate a just-barely reasonable amount of energy plant-wise. As for wind energy, that also requires a lot of space, however it is a better solution than the other two. And thermal energy: what do you mean by that?

-Albatross

[z05DSL3A]

How is is not cleaner?

Three Mile Island, Tokaimura, Chernobyl... not worth the risk.