Click here for DaTechGuyBlog.com Same Fedoras, Same Cannoli different domain.
Please Help DaTechGuy pay Da Bills
Click for the latest show
Was doing some channel surfing and briefly came across the Monk Episode Mr. Monk and the Three Julies.
There was a brief scene (couldn’t find the scene) where Randy names his 2nd theory on a case of the person killing Julie Teagers, and it is the T2 theory.
I couldn’t help but think of this clip.
This is a perfect example of comedy about religion without defaming it. And most important it is funny!
From the Curt Jester here is a rather funny list of what programming language is your religion:
C would be Judaism – it’s old and restrictive, but most of the world is familiar with its laws and respects them. The catch is, you can’t convert into it – you’re either into it from the start, or you will think that it’s insanity. Also, when things go wrong, many people are willing to blame the problems of the world on it.
C++ would be Islam – It takes C and not only keeps all its laws, but adds a very complex new set of laws on top of it. It’s so versatile that it can be used to be the foundation of anything, from great atrocities to beautiful works of art. Its followers are convinced that it is the ultimate universal language, and may be angered by those who disagree. Also, if you insult it or its founder, you’ll probably be threatened with death by more radical followers.
For some reason the Catholic Church is not included and he thinks about it.
Now a programming language that reflected the Catholic Church would be a cross between Basic and machine language. Basic gives it the James Joyce ‘here comes everybody’ aspect and machine language would give it the direct access to God that we have through the Eucharist. The Catholic Church can nourish anybody from the humblest peasant to the most brilliant theologian. Like most languages an interpreter is required for compiled code. In computing if you don’t have a valid interpreter/compiler the code you write will end up either doing nothing or not what you intended. The teaching magisterium of the Church gives us that interpreter in real life. A good interpreter/compiler also has lots of error checking. On our own we are often prone to errors and so being informed of our errors is to our good to ensure that we write valid code. Often we think we are writing valid code only to find that when we go to build it something is not exactly right. You can’t just tell the interpreter/compiler you are sorry for writing bad code, you have to repent of your coding error and fix it.
He goes on quite a bit on it. I would lean toward machine code myself but that’s me.
Question what does the number of bids on my home offered tech services and the amount of dollars the SEIU spent on its charitable efforts for low income housing?
Both equal nearly one:
Union-founded nonprofit spent zero on its charitable purpose in two years
The Captain states an uncomfortable fact.
One has to wonder how the SEIU could have remained in the dark about its charitable arm for so long, unless it was a willful blindness and the unit had some other purpose.
I don’t wonder at all I think they as implied by the intercepts blog followed the rules of Larry in the stooges short Income Tax Sappy.
Moe: How much did you claim for charity?
Larry: $5,000
Moe” Who did you give the money to?
Larry: Me.
Moe: You?
Larry: Sure, charity begins at home.
Can’t find the clip online so you will have to settle for the python camel spotting clip again.
Bob Owens the Confederate Yankee goes after truthism on the right with an article on Pajamas Media on the president elects constitutional qualifications for the White House:
In various courts, dozens of cases have been filed claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible to hold the presidency because of various alleged citizenship issues. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request to review one such case. Another case challenging Obama’s eligibility nearly identical to the first was immediately added to the Court’s docket for December 12, and yet another case looms in the wings.
What all these cases have in common is a sincere, often irrational belief that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitution’s minimal requirements to become president of the United States. Let’s look at those requirements and see if we can lay these to rest.
He lays out a great case and on his own blog asks if it is good enough to convince the doubters. The answer is no. And the reason is multi-fold.
First the leadership will never admit defeat, that hurts the book sales, conference sales and speaking fees as suggested in this post. The subject is different but the tactics are the same, make a buck. When it comes to these guys i’m not so sure about the sincere part.
Secondly there are the followers, they need a reason to follow, and be part of something bigger then themselves. By being a part of this they “know” a truth that is either in their mind denied by the more foolish or unknown to the ignorant. This increases self esteem which might be lacking.
Thirdly you have those who absolutely hate Obama and the fact he was elected. It’s hard to lose an election. As I said before I held a sign for McCain in Massachusetts for 7 hours on election day it was tough to lose. I didn’t buy the results in Pennsylvania at first but in the end the facts are the facts and one must to steal a phrase “move on”. This group actually has the best shot of being convinced because they are motivated more by hope than anything else but some will cling to this and will bring it up every time that the president elect does something foolish.
Hey some people are still not convinced that the 2000 election wasn’t stolen, what makes us think that these people will be any different?
Via Glenn who knows all , sees all and sooner or later blogs all.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 