Little things that annoy the hell out of you

[PAPER/ARTILLERY]

I seem to remember seeing some smartphones that opened up like a book with two screens. Don't know if they ever made it to market though. Seemed like a pretty cool form factor to me, you could have your browser on one screen and text messaging on the other. Not sure how practical it might be in use though.

[Ed Oscuro]

Do you buy a car to protect yourself from other car owners?

Maybe that's why old people buy those huge Cadillacs.

I remember back in the '90s people said "buy your teenager a big old '80s car made of all steel" - I feel so much safer already!

A person isn't immune from being second-guessed about issues, so - does my car use too much gas? Does my computer use too much power? etc. - that kind of inquiry can be endless.

The law can be preventative, but there is a big difference between assuming somebody has to justify themselves before doing something, versus having it clear that if they fall afoul of the law they will have to try to justify themselves after the fact. Of course, I think many people in jurisdictions that ban firearms would enjoy the ability to try to make a case that they need a weapon - in some places where permits go through a certain official, that official's personal feelings and biases end up counting for more than the permit seeker's actual argument from need, which is pretty ridiculous.

Don't really get all the hype about "bigger and badder = worse." It's not reasonable to expect somebody to make do with the six shots of a revolver if they have to protect themselves against even one assailant, especially if there may be multiple assailants; I think many anti-firearms people believe more in John Woo than firearms owners themselves. Gigantic weapons? Well, we have that class called "destructive devices." Again, I wouldn't argue that there isn't a limit on what can be practically useful for the intended use of firearms.

The difference being a gun's sole purpose is to kill, where as a car is a form of transport that just happens to be big enough and fast enough to kill things, generally due to human error.

You've actually got two totally different conceptions of "purpose," and the difference is slight enough that it doesn't seem finessed - but it is.

We could say that the "design," just talking about the physical objects, of both a handgun and a car is to displace mass, with different controls. A handgun may put a small hole in something roughly precisely where you aim it, and is light enough to carry - a car does neither of these things.

I find the whole "guns don't kill people - people do" both enlightening and infuriating. Infuriating because it's usually meant to end the discussion, but enlightening because it suggests the better way to talk about things.

Anybody who says "I have a gun to kill bad guys" isn't in line with what the respectable rationale for deadly self-defense is. Hint: It's "self-defense," not "killing people." Whether people say "the robber got what was coming to him" - that's pretty much a matter of justifiable opinion. But the actual deadly use of force in self-defense is something forced onto the person doing the self-defense, not something they seek out. If they are seeking out trouble in hopes of killing people, that's where the whole business of "justifying yourself before a jury of your peers" business comes into play.

As it so happens, there are also laws that sanction people for vehicular homicide.

Is there some further difference here? I don't see anybody explicitly saying that it's less respectable to kill somebody to save your life than it is to go to the store. It certainly should be - and is - less common, but that's got nothing to do with whether it's justified. I hope nobody out there says it's not justified.

[KAI]

Have you ever heard of Twisted Metal? Cars+Guns, that's the future of personal protection.

[dcharlie]

I find the whole "guns don't kill people - people do" both enlightening and infuriating. Infuriating because it's usually meant to end the discussion, but enlightening because it suggests the better way to talk about things.

It doesn't end the discussion because it's got one fatal flaw in it - it's usually espoused by people who also don't want background checks. So what we end up with is the argument that it's not the guns, it's the PEOPLE that kill people... but we're absolutely against checking that the sort of people that might kill other people before we give them a gun.

Whether people say "the robber got what was coming to him" - that's pretty much a matter of justifiable opinion

oh? That seems very black and white there - robber has kids to feed etc. People find themselves in shitty situations and have to take desperate measures sometimes, but i'm shocked constantly at seeing arguments like this that basically just boil it down to "justifiable opinion" / "they had it coming" / "it was them or me" - whilst the latter does carry more water -in some cases- we only have to look at the Treyvon case to see where this can lead.

"But the actual deadly use of force in self-defense is something forced onto the person doing the self-defense, not something they seek out. "

Okay - let me boil it down to this - i don't trust a vast majority of people to be able to discern when they're actually in danger. I agree , coming from a rural background, that there's obviously needs to arm yourself for self defense - but a huge % of people are socially stunted and/or just plain stupid/an arsehole. That's the crux of my beef with freely available guns - i wouldn't trust these people with a cat let alone a firearm.








Iiiiiiiiiiiiin other annoyance. The anti-gay thing ..... why is this even a discussion? Can we not just set up a land where these arseholes can go and make each other miserable whilst the rest of the world moves on? I don't give a fuck what your made up god of choice has to say on the subject.

[Ed Oscuro]

I find the whole "guns don't kill people - people do" both enlightening and infuriating. Infuriating because it's usually meant to end the discussion, but enlightening because it suggests the better way to talk about things.

It doesn't end the discussion because it's got one fatal flaw in it - it's usually espoused by people who also don't want background checks. So what we end up with is the argument that it's not the guns, it's the PEOPLE that kill people... but we're absolutely against checking that the sort of people that might kill other people before we give them a gun.

Yeah, the context and politics of this matters - but the argument is just an argument. This is some kind of reverse appeal to authority...appeal to stereotype maybe. So you have a point but it's not really related to the actual argument.

Okay - let me boil it down to this - i don't trust a vast majority of people to be able to discern when they're actually in danger.

That's the "reasonable person" test. Nothing mysterious about it.

Have you ever heard of Twisted Metal? Cars+Guns, that's the future of personal protection.

I think the whole point of video games like that is they're challenging to control and you can fail at them without major repercussions - these aren't qualities we want in home defense! Most people interested in home defense spend their time worrying about overpenetration so they don't destroy everything and kill people across the street.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I hate that thick cardboard used to package printers. I have had the worst luck slicing my fingers open on them, and it's usually the ones I use most for playing games. Ugh, makes paper cuts look like nothing by comparison.

[BPzeBanshee]

I hate that thick cardboard used to package printers. I have had the worst luck slicing my fingers open on them, and it's usually the ones I use most for playing games. Ugh, makes paper cuts look like nothing by comparison.

As someone who is now working in a place that sells a lot of printers, it's better than the alternative: for instance, a very thin cardboard that doesn't hold the damn thing.

I learnt this the hard way buying a UPS from my own place of work: it came damaged in transit because, you guessed it, it was that heavy and the cardboard thin enough that it just dropped through the packaging and got dented.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Some printer brands are nice and will tape along all the seams so there's no exposed cardboard except for where the handles are (and those generally aren't bad to hold). It's the ones where it's just tape along the lengthwise seam and not along the exposed edges where a hand slipping can result in a cut. Wearing gloves all day to move 'em just makes your hands sweaty, and when you use touchscreens a lot you need a few fingers exposed.

I've seen some really shitty packaging for UPSes. The Cardboard is so soft and flimsy that I think it's mostly relying on the styrofoam inside to stop it from getting dented. The worst though are Cobra's CB radio antennas. They're giant so they're a pain to package safely, the cardboard packaging is so flimsy that it easily slips off, and the internal bits actually fall out and slide around inside because they plastic covering is so loose. They're the most annoying thing to ship long distance ever.

[brentsg]

I just had a grocery checker that wanted my life story and wanted to share his as well. Holy shit was it awful..

When I leave the store and my checker knows my favorite books and movies, what I'm doing this weekend, whether or not I have kids, etc... something has gone horribly wrong.

[BIL]

Ancient, shitty PC mobo's front audio panel dies. Mobo decides if we can't have front audio, despite a perfectly good line-out round the back, we'll have none at all. I've just drank a massive coffee and now the silence is crushing me. :/

[Ed Oscuro]

RIP AC '97

[BIL]

np: "Eternal Promise ~ Goodbye RANDAM" from SNATCHER SCC MEMORIAL ;_;

(even though I can't hear it, the foobar oscilloscope is bouncing along merrily!)

[Moniker]

Ingrown hairs. One on my forefinger and one on my shoulder. Fella at work slapped me on the back and I teared up.

Also, hemorrhoids.

[Edmond Dantes]

Cotton candy is apparently a "summer" food. Umm, why?

When you keep meaning to advance one of your projects (finally doing a lets play or whatever) but something always seems to come up.

Sudden, pounding headaches.

... And not to start the old shitstorm again, but people who think they're being clever by creating a fake account so they can flame you on your best friend's blog, unaware that there are ways to find out who they are (it was someone from Ontario, Canada, whose IP address is 174.114.40.104. It was in response to the whole gun debate, and the real rich part was that whosoever it was actually brought up my Bronydom as a point).

[Ed Oscuro]

We should ban anonymity on the Internet so people don't feel emboldened to be abusive.

[Ruldra]

We should ban anonymity on the Internet so people don't feel emboldened to be abusive.

NSA like this.

[BIL]

I for one would be happy to use my coworker's real name and picture on the internet But sometimes I think people would show up on my front lawn with automatic firearms after I give 'em a right Information Superhighway jailhouse rogering, so that would be a pain

(honestly Youtube, I only use you to host my crummy gameplay vids and even then I regard your community as a leaking cereal box full of [insert horrid substance of your liking here], why would I let the whole world know I can't afford a good capture setup?)

[BareKnuckleRoo]

think they're being clever by creating a fake account unaware that there are ways to find out who they are

I wasn't aware typing in garbage in the name and email address section of a generic blog counted as making 'a fake account'. I think you've confused laziness with stealthiness. Ohnoes, my IP address, my secret identity's uncovered, the script kiddies will get me! Fuck, if this is like most forums the mods can probably see everyone's IP. It's not like it's a well-kept secret of who doesn't find you particularly respected, what with you trying hard to emulate a certain "guns are for mass displacement" member who also happened to bring up the inane remark about "people die because cars, but they don't get banned!" I like the edit to the original post too, lol, freedom for all and guns unless it's speech, amirite?

Ugh, see, this ties into what seems to be a habit with you - you have no concept of depth. You tout a meaningless image without context like it's some grand revelation and all gun control advocates must necessarily admit defeat. You don't seem to be understanding or making any sort of logical connections that a culture that grows to make guns readily accessible also makes them more available to criminals, be it from simply buying them, or stealing them from legal owners. But even then you're determined to make the most childish complaints about how you hate people who advocate against widespread gun ownership by comparing it to Mario never using powerups. Life isn't a video game, you don't necessarily stop criminals with guns by owning them yourself. Whether you think gun ownership would act as a overall deterrent or simply think that a gun vs a criminal = victory, seeing the problem from such a simplistic stance is frankly immature. You don't even bother to wonder how the weapons got to be so much more available to criminals, or if there's a way of reducing the rate of violent crime or the need for guns. You've even said things like:

Yeah, and the worst part is that the people actually think its a good thing and are ay-okay with it. Especially with regards to that second amendment. Anyone who supports any abridgement of that one deserves whatever ill befalls them, IMHO.

Or said that people should see what it's like being directly involved in gun violence. That's simply cruel, and frankly I think you're emotionally stunted if you so callously think that anyone who suggests a constitutional amendment deserves death (yes, constitutional amendments do happen, countries are not magical, static entities that never change in laws).

The solution to the problem of gun violence is not "give people more guns". Nothing in life is ever so simplistic, but it seems to be habit for you to grossly oversimply issues. Case in point: your review of an episode of a children's cartoon that you feel doesn't address bullying adequately. Bullying is an issue that manifests itself in a variety of ways, and there's no simple solution. You then complain that the show teaches kids not to stand up for themselves and to show how ridiculous it is... at 3 minutes in you show clips of a Super Sentai show fighting off bad guys, and a first person shooter where you stand there getting shot at without firing back. I can't comment on the episode itself, but bullying is not like someone actively trying to kill you and it's a matter of kill or be killed. Not necessarily anyways - bullying is often just as much psychological as it is physical, but never so simple as "bad guys trying to hurt me ohnoes!". Bullying can be about not being able to fit into a social clique, or actual physical abuse, but you seem to suggest that standing up for yourself is always a good idea. Not if you're likely to get the shit kicked out of you, it isn't. Some bullies are fucking psychotic, and the situations in which bullies manifest themselves are quite varied, so sometimes it is actually a good idea to talk to an adult/authority figure. You don't really suggest a solution either, though you do suggest "cartoons like this aren't healthy", and I agree, it's not entirely healthy trying to have a show about morals that frequently involves bland characterization that suggests a mark on your butt should define your entire personality instead of teaching kids they don't have to be personally defined by a single interest. But that's another issue entirely.

But it's ultimately a kids show based on a franchise designed to sell young girls plastic ponies. Bullying is a problem that's been around for ages; it's unrealistic to expect a kids show to be able to address every element of bullying. Do you want them to be beating each other up as a solution? Kids are impressionable after all, and while violence can unfortunately be a last resort, the ideal method is to find something that doesn't lower the victim to the bully's level. I'm not sure if your love of guns ties into some unfortunate revenge fantasies (and believe me they're quite explicit when you've been bullied), but you can't seriously expect a kids show about ponies to realistically portray bullying. Bullying is brutal, it's too real to be captured accurately in any cartoon, so best any kids show is display a watered down version of it.

This all relates to your habitual problem of seeing issues from only the most shallow of depths. Do you know what people who want gun bans ultimately want? It's not simply about banning guns because "ohnoes I dun like guns"; that's fucking simplistic. The real goal is to try and change the culture's mentality to the point where guns are no longer so beloved so people stop wanting them, thus making them less available and readily accessible in general both to actual criminals, and simply irresponsible or mentally unstable people, like in countries where guns are so rare that shootings are a shocking, unusual occurrence, instead of simply being just another school shooting. That's not to say that crime or murder rates are rarer where guns are rare, we know well that crime is more about socioeconomic issues than simply what weapons are around, but guns are by design incredibly lethal, and it takes much more effort to use a knife for a mass murder than it requires a gun.

The Harvard study you touted that supposedly "proves everything [the anti-gun crowd in this thread] says are wrong", appears to be fondly circulated on pro-gun sites. However, as even Wikipedia notes, there are some serious research limitations when discussing the issue of gun violence. Touting one study as a holy grail is yet another example of your tendency to grossly oversimply and view things from a myopic standpoint. It was published in 2007, and yet the Harvard Injury Control Research Center's official site has plenty more to say about guns related to injury/homicide, gun ownership, or even how changing social norms is needed to address the issue, with citations of several different studies, including one from 2013 in that last link. Research is something that always needs to be ongoing, especially in an area that is incredibly fraught with research difficulties, and it's unbelievably premature and unscientific to suggest one single paper deserves to be touted as a means of "well you're all wrong".



tl;dr Something that annoys the hell out of me but isn't so little: someone who suggests that anyone who disagrees with them deserves whatever they get, with the obvious, unspoken inclusion of death. It's sick, and the product of someone who is either mentally deranged or seriously immature and who shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when he tries to debate matters of law that deal with life and death while at the same time devaluing the lives of anyone who disagrees with him.

Also, I annoy myself. I don't know why I'm dumb enough to get irritated enough by stupid responses to keep wasting my time addressing this ignorant nonsense. I wish I could be more apathetic about this sort of issue and just go moar FULL SHMUP.

[Ed Oscuro]

10% argument, 90% hyperbole and angst. I don't need to be told that gun violence (or any other issue) is an emotional issue and even that it's justified; at some point you're just venting and it's not informative to anybody.

you trying hard to emulate a certain "guns are for mass displacement" member who also happened to bring up the inane remark about "people die because cars, but they don't get banned!" I like the edit to the original post too, lol, freedom for all and guns unless it's speech, amirite?

I've already given a much more likely response but at this point I've given up trying to have a discussion - because who cares about finding out the truth, this is just cynical politics and preaching to the choir, amirite?

Just because somebody can't elucidate a theoretical defense of something that matters to them doesn't mean that they aren't justified in holding that belief. Even with thousands of years of practice, I don't think anybody's yet managed to define anything in a way that would please Socrates - that doesn't mean we don't know anything, though.

FWIW I agree that Wayne LaPierre's speech trying to deflect blame to everything else, including "VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!" (Charlie Booker's Weekly Wipe pointed out that the NRA itself has issued some video games, although I think the bigger problem is the obvious "only our freedoms matter, who cares about freedom of speech?" angle inherent in his diversion) was very poor.

@ Edmond:

What's all this business about the anonymous post? Did you delete it or something?

[dcharlie]

re: secondary accounts

yeah - there was a few incidents recently where new members suddenly popped up - posted twice to alter the direction of a conversation or pat someone on the back - then promptly never post ever again.

[drauch]

So... can we have a thread split already?

LITTLE THINGS THAT ANNOY ME: Having to wade through pages of bullshit just to see what annoys everyone.

[Edmond Dantes]

@ Edmond:

What's all this business about the anonymous post? Did you delete it or something?

See the Gun Topic.

Gonna try to keep this particular topic on-rails from this moment forth.

So... umm... wasps. I hate wasps. They annoy me. I think I mentioned that already.

Oh, and cotton candy, or rather the lack of it. And how the fuck can a candy be a "summer food"? I didn't realize foods were season-specific.

[Lord Satori]

I didn't realize foods were season-specific.

Are you fucking serious? How can you not realize this?

On another note, IE just decided today that it doesn't want websites to work on it anymore. (I'm only on here because I started using chrome to browse a couple sites that had this [Object Error] window spammed up when I opened it in IE)

Oh, and AVG decided today that its an illegal version because its too old.

People that don't know the proper emoticon to post.

wtf, I just got a whole bunch of errors!

[Edmond Dantes]

Well, I mean I understand it with like Popsicles or the like, which of course are best in summer.

But cotton fucking candy? That stuff tastes awesome no matter what the weather is like outside.

*sigh* Well, anyway, this inspired me to buy a cotton candy maker off of Amazon so I don't have to worry about local stores having it in stock.

[KAI]

hardcoregaming101 talking shit about K.H.D.N.

[BIL]

LOL HG101. Often full of shit though never entirely without utility. A bit like a toilet!

[Ed Oscuro]

Speaking of shit, somebody in the Fishy PC Engine topic posted.

Febreze. That's what annoys me.

A guy who did some work replacing a well told me a hilarious story about one of the city's elite businesswomen in pearls who had some kind of plumbing problem in her basement. The guy claimed that for this person, things "in the basement" were just beneath her literally and metaphorically. When he went down to check on the pump or whatever it was, there were piles of cat doo-doo everywhere because she'd just let the cat down there instead of actually having a litter box and taking care of the problem.

I suspect it's not really a true story but that's Febreze in a nutshell: Close the door on the basement and pretend there's no problem.

I should talk, though - I tend to wash things and then not put them back together. I've got to figure out how to get two PS2 fats and perhaps a couple original PSXs back together sometime, cripes...

[trap15]

Dumping a ROM that takes 5 and a half hours to do 256 bytes. And you need to dump 16384 bytes.

[BIL]

the Fishy PC Engine topic

I wasn't aware we'd gotten one of those. An unsettling read. Busted caps and TV rats.

[Ed Oscuro]

Dumping a ROM that takes 5 and a half hours to do 256 bytes. And you need to dump 16384 bytes.

How old is this thing?!