Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:47 pm

Koumei wrote:
Stahlseele wrote: 1.) WHY THE FUCK DO TEETH GET NERVES THAT SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO HURT LIKE A BITCH?
To instantly disprove Intelligent Design. Let's face it, with those things, the closest you could argue for is "Fucking Stupid Design".

Not a doctor, but I recommend any of the ____caine drugs for your teeth and gums (there is a teething gel for infants that will INSTANTLY render the whole thing completely numb - you could shoot yourself in the tooth with a .45 and not feel a thing*. The gel is over-the-counter at pharmacies, legal, non-addictive, non-expensive and not dangerous)

*I don't recommend this, but then again, I'm not a doctor. Frank can probably tell you whether shooting yourself in the teeth is a wise course of action or not.

How's this gel called and can it be had over here in GERMANY too? ;_;

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:13 pm

Oragel

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:22 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Does anyone have advice on how to pick out a good picture for online dating? I am trying to update my pic, and any advice on how to present myself in a positive light would be appreciated.

Try holding the camera yourself, hold it a bit higher than your head so you have to look up a bit. This will reduce your double chin if you have one. Also try taking pictures with and without the flash, I look like a horrid squinting beast with the flash but I'm half decent without one for instance.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:14 pm

I'm not sure I want to go for the kid look, I'm in my 30's after all.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:46 am

Apparently looking away from the camera makes you look more attractive. But the source on this is "some Cracked article I read a while ago," so don't bet the farm on that.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:45 am

Well, in Australia, Ireland and the UK, you can get a product called "Bonjela" (active ingredient lidocaine), which is effective, but the best one I sadly can't remember the name or active ingredient of. Bonjela has a sort of aniseed taste, and at first it burns, then goes numb. The other one has no flavour and just goes numb.

Technically speaking, cocaine would work too (surgeons use it over here for nose/mouth/throat surgery, especially on children). But that is illegal in some countries, and has other problems. My unprofessional recommendation would be "Don't use cocaine when lidocaine will do the job".

Also note that sugarcane is not part of the same group there, so will not work.

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:50 am

oktrends had some interesting pieces on photography for online dating:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont- ... -accident/
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4 ... -pictures/

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:36 am

Okay, I should be smiling, look off from the camera, and be doing something interesting for the results I want. I'll keep that in mind.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:19 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Okay, I should be smiling, look off from the camera, and be doing something interesting for the results I want. I'll keep that in mind.

and, of course, don't have a chick in the picture with you. or anyone, really. it's a dating site, not Facebook.

also, I really need a new pic myself...

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:22 am

Data says don't smile if you're not making eye contact, do smile if you are. And no smiles or eye contact is far and away the best bet.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:11 am

So the ideal picture of Count would be not smiling, looking away from the camera, so... glaring at the Den/Bill-O?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:28 am

Heh. I like the idea of everyone from the den who has a dating site profile making their main pic glaring at the den.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:32 am

Could someone give me some idea of the weight, physical dimensions, and cost in D&D gold pieces of printing press?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:05 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:Could someone give me some idea of the weight, physical dimensions, and cost in D&D gold pieces of printing press?

My brother-in-law has a fairly old printing press (maybe turn of the last century, or so). I'll have to ask him if he knows how much it weighs. A rough estimate on physical dimensions would be about four feet tall, three feet wide and long (although it's not rectangular in shape at all). Also, he needs storage for the massive amount of letters and lead spacers. They fill several shelves.

Edit: I think older printing presses were substantially larger too, so this might not be that valuable of information for you.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:38 pm

Does anyone know if there's a way to get a list of all the books you have read from the library? I"d even be interested in just this years books.

I asked one of the librarians and she said that she didn't know.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:24 pm

Cynic wrote:Does anyone know if there's a way to get a list of all the books you have read from the library? I"d even be interested in just this years books.

I asked one of the librarians and she said that she didn't know.

it would surprise me in this day and digital age if there is NOT a way to get one.

all they should have to do is cross reference your card # with due dates, and a librarian should know how to reference things if they ever used a card catalog...computers jsut make it MUCH quicker.

IF they keep records any length of time of the due dates save for those which are past due that is.

ANY smart business keeps records of what "products" are being taken so that they can keep those products in stock...so they need a way to tell which books they might need multiple copies of, or replace, so they have some record somewhere...just hope they link them.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:56 pm

I think that information varies by library.

Olympia being the eccentric town that it is, our library system doesn't keep those records so there's nothing to cough up should the Patriot Act come calling. They do have (of course), hold lists, lists of books currently checked out, and a list of lost/paid for items. If a patron has compiled a book list, they have access to that, too, but they don't keep a history of all the books you've ever checked out.

It's actually kind of annoying - I wanted to remember the names of a couple of books that I had turned in, so I went and asked. Then I turned in a second request via formal notification (available on the library website). Both times the response was the same.

As for who to ask... I don't know how your library system works, but mine has a special information request form that you can fill out (for requesting books from out-of-system, for specific information about a book, for book lists, having them make copies of books for you, purchasing requests, etc, etc). The library pays people to look up answers to your questions, so "I don't know" is an unacceptable reply. You might want to look around and see if something similar is available at your library.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:27 am

So, in the film SWAT, the perp declares (during his "perp walk") that he will give X million dollars to anyone who busts him out. And the media goes wild, pasting it all over the news.

So I have been catching up on a realistic forensic show CSI Miami. Basically the same thing happens.

So... does this also fall under the "shouting FIRE in a crowded cinema" rule, or is it legal, just irresponsible? (Both the initial statement and the media coverage.) It's not that this is relevant to me, I'm just anal-retentive enough to get annoyed when TV/movies continually use the same incorrect ideas - like the bit about elevators falling and crashing if a single cable is cut.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:38 am

Koumei wrote:So, in the film SWAT, the perp declares (during his "perp walk") that he will give X million dollars to anyone who busts him out. And the media goes wild, pasting it all over the news.

So I have been catching up on a realistic forensic show CSI Miami. Basically the same thing happens.

So... does this also fall under the "shouting FIRE in a crowded cinema" rule, or is it legal, just irresponsible? (Both the initial statement and the media coverage.) It's not that this is relevant to me, I'm just anal-retentive enough to get annoyed when TV/movies continually use the same incorrect ideas - like the bit about elevators falling and crashing if a single cable is cut.

The initial offer is solicitation to commit a bunch of crimes, which is a crime. In this case, it's mass solicitation. Media coverage of it is, in the US, protected by the 1st amendment for the most part, though the cops would probably ask them not to publish it. And most journalists wouldn't, as it is grossly irresponsible to do so.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:44 am

Koumei wrote:So, in the film SWAT, the perp declares (during his "perp walk") that he will give X million dollars to anyone who busts him out. And the media goes wild, pasting it all over the news.

So I have been catching up on a realistic forensic show CSI Miami. Basically the same thing happens.

So... does this also fall under the "shouting FIRE in a crowded cinema" rule, or is it legal, just irresponsible? (Both the initial statement and the media coverage.) It's not that this is relevant to me, I'm just anal-retentive enough to get annoyed when TV/movies continually use the same incorrect ideas - like the bit about elevators falling and crashing if a single cable is cut.

was it right for the icelandic woman who gave up the boston mobster to be named by the boston herald?

"mass media" is about sensationalism and ratings, not about morals or journalism.

it really helped nobody to give this woman's name. it was basically trailer trash TV like survivor and other reality TV programming masquerading as something useful.

it was done for a quick buck rather than actually helping those viewing the media, and that is what it has all become.

FOX News has some of the best comedy you will see on TV, even better than Comedy Central. the simple fact is the very sensationalism it offers.

i would say the "perp" was doing something wrong by trying to get people to commit a crime in getting him out, and thus to should the media be charged by spreading it as an accomplice.

it isnt like the media wa being held hostage and MADE to air this stuff, but chose to do the wrong thing. that is NOT what the First Amendment offers them freedom from.

the funny thin about the Boston Herald is that the MEDIA is not criminalized when not giving up its sources, but felt free to give up someone else's sources.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:19 am

shadzar wrote:
the funny thin about the Boston Herald is that the MEDIA is not criminalized when not giving up its sources, but felt free to give up someone else's sources.

...Reporters have totally spent time in jail for refusing to name their sources. Your position doesn't agree with reality.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:30 am

Neeeek wrote:
shadzar wrote:
the funny thin about the Boston Herald is that the MEDIA is not criminalized when not giving up its sources, but felt free to give up someone else's sources.
...Reporters have totally spent time in jail for refusing to name their sources. Your position doesn't agree with reality.

except they cannot be charged unless it impedes and investigation. otherwise they can only be detained for X amount of days/hours before they have to be charged with something. this is often used as a scare tactic against those not with large media that will turn around and sue the fuck out of the police for unlawful detainment. which just makes the police have to trump up a charge, actually charge with obstruction of justice, or let them go.

this is why wikileaks gets in so much trouble for publishing things in violation of privacy laws.

basically that is what BH did releasing this woman's name...hey jsut deemed the situation non-threatening to her, and she CAN sue the police for invasion of privacy and the FBI CAN charge the BH with releasing classified information without going through the proper channels of the freedom of information act, which makes them have to wait X number of years.

they just violated the law and went ahead with it to try to get their portion of her $2 million.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:42 am

shadzar wrote:
except they cannot be charged unless it impedes and investigation. otherwise they can only be detained for X amount of days/hours before they have to be charged with something.

Umm...It's criminal contempt of court. The time they can be detained is "until they talk".

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:49 pm

OK, It's tough being an "Old Fart" trying to remember things some fifteen or more years ago, so here is a really annoying question that is RPG related.

Which dark future game had the "PROLE ACT" (where people were paid to give thier politial votes to corporations and it was a valid occupation in the game)? Was that Cyberpunk or Shadowrun? And what was the year the act was enabled?

Help an old fart out and thanks a googleplex.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:46 pm

It wasn't Shadowrun.
So it was probably Cyberpunk2020. Though I don't remember it in that either. Was it in Project Green?