@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Good morning everyone. About to get breakfast here.

I'm eating breakfast right now also, Coca Cola, haha.

Make the job sound much easier than it is, even if it's an easy job, in order to destroy his confidence. I'm serious. Young people in general do have a lot of unwarranted confidence about their abilities, but IT people especially need to understand they don't know everything and never will. I'm not saying be mean or condescending, but what I've done for years now is talk about the minor details of what I'm fixing and how it works, things they often don't know. Most don't say anything, but a few times a few have said they were over their heads, and one guy even quit, but the work they were doing wasn't really that complex.

@scottalanmiller You're not? Better call off my hate mail campaign and apologise to Ralph Scott Miller.

@scottalanmiller said:

That's why NO ONE complains about the minimum wage being too high, they complain that the minimum wage is "too close to their wage."

Definitely seen that a lot, it's weird.

@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Those pizzas look really messed up

@IT-ADMIN said:

Make new lines, HTML doesn't need to be on a single line like that. If you're going that many columns, it's a problem between keyboard and chair

New Earth / Creationism replies should go here, for any future person which may come along: http://mangolassi.it/topic/9141/what-is-new-earth/

Have you tried the man pages? </zing>

@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:

@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:

@scottalanmiller said in What is New Earth:

@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:

@thanksajdotcom said in What is New Earth:

@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:

I've always practiced a policy of "never discuss science with those who subscribe to any religion". This has saved me immeasurable time over the years.

I've known plenty of atheists with piss poor understanding of science. Of course, if one's religion clouds their ability to reason it doesn't really matter, but you can find a lot of die hard conspiracy theorists and flat earthers who are atheists too. There's one famous flat earth guy, I think his film is called "under the dome", anyway he thinks it's aliens, not God which put us in this dome.

Atheism is not an automatic sign of being reasonable or intelligent.

Who said I was atheist? That's as bad an "ism" as all the rest. I am fervently anti-religion, all of them. I believe in science, not in re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-translated stories from thousands of years ago.

Nobody, I never said you were an atheist. I was merely pointing out lack of a religion doesn't mean they're intelligent, which is what you basically said.

Actually, I said I don't discuss science with religious people. Nor do I discuss it with idiots or otherwise unreasonable people. When not at work, I surround myself with intelligent people.

So what are you defining religious as then? Any faith in anything or organised religion only?

I like to torment my religious friends by calling their religion a cult.

I was actually raised in a cult, so I actually have done this and find it hysterical.

All religions are a cult. That is the definition of the word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Yeah, cult isn't a bad word to someone religious. Christianity based on Christ's teachings is just the "Cult of Christ" for example. Or Islam the "Cult of Mohammed."

But to most American Christians, it is a horrible nasty word and they get offended.

American christians are super easy to offend, especially in the south. It can be loads of fun if you feel like tormenting someone.

If you really want to mess with some of their heads, start comparing Christianity and Islam, and argue some of the logical problems in Christianity (such as the crucifixion and resurrection, and the trinity, especially the trinity) and explain how these ideas work versus in Islam. It makes them uncomfortable, sometimes hostile because of the strangeness. It's a whole thing I don't want to derail the thread about, but as a Muslim I think it can be quite funny.

Especially though if they want to quote any violent aspects of the Qur'an, I can find usually the same things in the Bible, sometimes almost word for word since most of the Qur'an comes from the Bible in some form or another. There's plenty of double back flips trying to explain why if the Qur'an says it, it's bad, but if the Bible says it, well that's different.

@scottalanmiller said in Are these real users or bots?:

Believe it or not, we have decent SEO and the search engines send people here for posts all of the time. Only a small fraction of people visiting will every become members with accounts, that's just how these things work. So the guest number isn't really unexpected.

Look at this show off

@scottalanmiller said in What is New Earth:

@coliver said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:

@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:

@scottalanmiller said in What is New Earth:

@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:

@thanksajdotcom said in What is New Earth:

@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:

I've always practiced a policy of "never discuss science with those who subscribe to any religion". This has saved me immeasurable time over the years.

I've known plenty of atheists with piss poor understanding of science. Of course, if one's religion clouds their ability to reason it doesn't really matter, but you can find a lot of die hard conspiracy theorists and flat earthers who are atheists too. There's one famous flat earth guy, I think his film is called "under the dome", anyway he thinks it's aliens, not God which put us in this dome.

Atheism is not an automatic sign of being reasonable or intelligent.

Who said I was atheist? That's as bad an "ism" as all the rest. I am fervently anti-religion, all of them. I believe in science, not in re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-translated stories from thousands of years ago.

Nobody, I never said you were an atheist. I was merely pointing out lack of a religion doesn't mean they're intelligent, which is what you basically said.

Actually, I said I don't discuss science with religious people. Nor do I discuss it with idiots or otherwise unreasonable people. When not at work, I surround myself with intelligent people.

So what are you defining religious as then? Any faith in anything or organised religion only?

I like to torment my religious friends by calling their religion a cult.

I was actually raised in a cult, so I actually have done this and find it hysterical.

All religions are a cult. That is the definition of the word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Yeah, cult isn't a bad word to someone religious. Christianity based on Christ's teachings is just the "Cult of Christ" for example. Or Islam the "Cult of Mohammed."

But to most American Christians, it is a horrible nasty word and they get offended.

American christians are super easy to offend, especially in the south. It can be loads of fun if you feel like tormenting someone.

If you really want to mess with some of their heads, start comparing Christianity and Islam, and argue some of the logical problems in Christianity (such as the crucifixion and resurrection, and the trinity, especially the trinity) and explain how these ideas work versus in Islam. It makes them uncomfortable, sometimes hostile because of the strangeness. It's a whole thing I don't want to derail the thread about, but as a Muslim I think it can be quite funny.

Especially though if they want to quote any violent aspects of the Qur'an, I can find usually the same things in the Bible, sometimes almost word for word since most of the Qur'an comes from the Bible in some form or another. There's plenty of double back flips trying to explain why if the Qur'an says it, it's bad, but if the Bible says it, well that's different.

One easier... just bring up the Council of Nicaea.

That only works if you are talking to Catholics.

Some Protestants too, but only if they know what it is, but most Protestant faiths do follow the results of the voting, they just don't know it.

@dafyre said in Rocket Chat vs. Jabber:

Is there any reason in particular that it has to work with XMPP? I've not read the OP again... But if you need Desktop / Mobile clients, RocketChat offers those as well.

Yes, exactly what @scottalanmiller said. We've got a lot of communication, notification, and other things which use it. Our web cam and credit exchange system (the messaging aspects) and our chat system also use it, and while Rocket.Chat is more for internal use in our case, pushing/pulling information from these other services will be easier.

@dafyre said in What is New Earth:

I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.

Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).

It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.

I've been dealing with cron for... 22 years I guess, and it still irritates the hell out of me. Anyway, great work.

@dafyre said in What is New Earth:

@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:

@dafyre said in What is New Earth:

I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.

Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).

It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.

Yeah. This is one of those things of man trying to describe God when we really just...can't come close to understanding. Did some reading up over lunch and found an interesting read about it... It's kinda lengthy and uses a lot of scripture references... Seems to me to do a good job of describing it.... http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

That's what I meant though, none of the other concepts require that much to just explain it, and even then it still creates troublesome issues. You can find a lot by searching for "why does Jesus pray to himself" or things like Luke 23:46 (his spirit is different from God's), John 14:28 (he's going to see the father, implying he's separate completely rather than a part of something), John 8:28 (in addition to the ones I talked about before, here he says he doesn't know anything, God does, implying again he's not God), John 20:17 (another about going to see God, rather than he himself being God), Isaiah 11:2-3 (Jesus is afraid of God), and so on.

Of course you can find ones which seem to imply the opposite, that's what I was talking about when it comes to the contradictions which are hard to reconcile. I don't have an answer for that which can be universally applicable, and that's normal, because the belief in his divinity is an act of faith anyway so there's really no contest.

@Jason said in Lotus Notes:

This shows how little I know about it.. only 20 people or so have it in the company we bought out.. tiny amount. Turns out they aren't even using it for email. There was a custom app built inside of it a long long time ago. Horrible idea. Now we got to find a way to replace it.

When I saw the topic title "Lotus Notes" I thought "hey, an archaeology project"

I do warn people against this kind of thing, and one of my old specialities was moving people from old MS Access and various other legacy garbage to typically intranet web based applications. I like doing that kind of thing.

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:

http://technology.nasa.gov/patents

Good for NASA.

Sort of. Their site says that their patents "benefits American citizens" but then say that "companies can license them." So basically, they are just acting like any business selling patent licensing. It's not like they are opening their portfolio or using it to promote non-aggression. Really, as a part of the government, they shouldn't even be allowed to have patents and/or their patents should be automatically the property of the nation, not just NASA. I think they are falling short of even a minimally acceptable standard.

Since NASA only gets about half of one percent of the federal budget, why not let them try to make some more fundage?

Half of one percent? Damn it that's why my taxes are so high! Cancel the whole thing!

It sounds like you're talking about typing, not syntax, C++ and Java are strongly typed languages, their syntax is not actually much more "strict" than other high level languages, I have about equal syntax freedom in PHP 7, Java, and C++, but JavaScript has a little bit more "freedom", in the sense it allows you to do asinine things like not have semicolons at the ends of lines. This is something crappy Ruby and Python programmers sometimes love doing since they rail against semicolons, of course making their JavaScript harder to debug and impossible to compress.

Anyway...

Weak typing is easier for beginners, but it can make things difficult for larger, more complex projects; this is something we kept bumping up against in PHP, which is why PHP 7's strict typing is great and we've saved a lot of debugging headaches and dealing with other problems by making everything strictly typed.

Both PHP and JavaScript allow both static and dynamic comparison regardless of type strictness, for example:

1 == "1" True
1 === "1" False

The strict comparison is good for several reasons, however even in JavaScript there's a few issues with it, because JavaScript types in-of-themselves are not very good. There's not only a single object type which creates insane and unexpected results but there's also only a single numerical type as float, so:

0 == 0.00000000001 True

Languages like C++ and Java always have type strict comparison, so it's as if you're typing === every single time.

Having said that, when it comes to strict mode, those are different depending on the language. In PHP it's related to typing and how objects are handled (non-static properties cannot be accessed statically, for example), however in JavaScript it's primarily related to variables and object properties, all of the type issues still exist regardless.

Should you use it? In JavaScript absolutely always, because it helps make up for some of the language's flaws which can get you into trouble debugging later on. When it comes to PHP always have E_ALL | E_WARNING | E_NOTICE | E_STRICT | E_PARSE set in your php.ini (or barring that, set in .htaccess) and if you're using PHP 7 take advantage of the strict typeness, but even if you don't want to use PHP 7's new strict typing, properly log errors.

Do it right the first time.

As @JaredBusch said above, when I don't see it enabled, it's just a sign of the horrors to come. Even well written JS code will have errors typically in it when people don't use strict.

In the amateur programming world, especially PHP (but also JavaScript) there's a desire to simply hide warnings, notices, errors, etc rather than fixing them. This is like taping over your check engine light on your car and assuming it's now completely fine.

In other words, if you feel as though you should be able to suppress syntax and type errors knowingly, you should not program; get someone else to do it. I sometimes hurt feelings saying this, but if you approach any other job in a similarly lazy manner, you'd be fired or in some cases imprisoned when your building collapsed or killed someone.

In actuality, programming errors have killed people, maybe yours won't, but that's no excuse to intentionally do a bad job because you're lazy. It's bad for your customers, bad for your environment, bad for your users, and bad for you when things fail and break and you don't know what went wrong because instead of logging properly and completely, you suppressed everything.

In addition to returning to projects much later, laziness with typing and also syntax causes people to write bad code initially so later on they have a much harder time reading their own code or debugging. Some people say this doesn't happen to them, perhaps with tiny scripts that's true, but beyond that they're just lying, or they're stupid.

So no, it's not awesome, and I've personally had to fix cases where ignored notices from PHP created failed database queries and data loss, as well as incomplete data states, and there's the recent example of a similar declaration problem leading to a guy deleting all of his customer data, that is also an example of why you don't program in production, another massive problem out there.

Either turn on all warnings and notices, enable strict everywhere you can or stop programming, no matter what it is you're working on. There's enough bad code out there, fix your approach before you get too old to do it and you're that old programmer everyone hates or that old IT guy who writes bad scripts which break things everyone else has to fix.

So when starting a project or script, if you want to hide PHP's warnings or notices or keep JavaScript from being strict remember to tell yourself, clients, and anyone else that "I'm starting this new project and I'm going to do a terrible job at it," because you will, it's inevitable.

So I agree with @scottalanmiller, it depends on what your goals are, either to write something that works and is easier to maintain later on, or to write garbage to create a hell for yourself and other people which may or may not destroy data and lose things with no further information as to what went wrong.

Now that you know the importance of it, any decision otherwise beyond this point is being intentionally stupid and reckless.

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@nadnerB said in Non-IT News Thread:

One for @RojoLoco

Perth's first adults-only burger comes with a legal waiver that precludes diners with a pre-existing stomach or heart condition – and insists you have someone drive you home.
...
The Canning Vale owner of the American-style Johnny's Burger Joint holds a monthly eating challenge where contenders with fire-resistant stomachs can take on the seemingly innocent-looking double cheese burger that packs a wallop so serious it could put the unwary in hospital.
...
"One man finished it, but he left with the shakes and shivers and had to take the next day off work," Mr Wong said.

Rather hot sauce: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/canning-vale-adultsonly-burger-comes-with-a-health-warning-and-a-legal-waiver-20160511-gosx2q.html?eid=email:nnn-13omn652-ret_newsl-membereng:nnn-04%2F11%2F2013-news_am-dom-news-nnn-watoday-u&campaign_code=13INO006&promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=NTg4NTMxNQ

I'm in!

Oh yeah, hotter the better. If my hot sauce isn't blinding the person next to me, it'd too mild. One thing I miss about not being in the US is Taco Bell fire sauce, I'd put about 5 or 6 on a soft taco, oh man... I'd try for more but then it's just messy, but a beef burrito, you can do way more. That's not the hottest, I'm just saying it's something I miss They did have, last time, some kind of other hotter type, but they didn't have it the last time I went before I left again, that sucked.

You need to visit Buffalo (and you can in September) where Taco Bell's fire sauce is considered "not spicy."

I don't really consider it that spicy at all, I just really like it taste-wise and it's unfortunately you can't get it here. I was raised in very spicy food, my grandmother would make soups that would probably strip the paint off a car.

Instead of just using aliases, set your home directory in your PATH before /usr/bin/local and create replacement programs to irritate anyone using your user account... that's what I do for fun on my personal machine.