00:00:51 -!- Bike has joined. 00:01:22 they did an interview with the tsareav's dad 00:01:36 said they were stupid bastards 00:01:59 the people interviewing or his sons? 00:03:15 -!- Bike_ has joined. 00:03:48 the dad said whoever did the bombings were bastards 00:03:54 i heard they interviewed their uncle 00:03:59 their uncle went on a little rant about it and how chechens weren't like that 00:04:01 "why do you think they did this?" "because they're losers" 00:04:04 yes 00:04:06 it was great 00:04:11 -!- Bike has quit (Disconnected by services). 00:04:12 -!- Bike_ has changed nick to Bike. 00:04:30 that guy is amazing 00:04:32 cutting to the core of the terrorist mythos 00:04:52 you forgot 'idiots' 00:09:28 -!- benuphoenix has changed nick to benuphoenix|away. 00:10:54 https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2013-April/008192.htmlnice 00:10:56 er 00:10:58 https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2013-April/008192.html nice 00:11:57 -!- Bike_ has joined. 00:12:30 that research project is cool 00:13:00 -!- Bike has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 00:14:46 -!- Nisstyre-laptop has quit (Quit: Leaving). 00:14:49 -!- Bike_ has changed nick to Bike. 00:15:02 So, I guess there is a very good reason to verify that incoming data meets constraints that only happen to exist because the data won't contain weird things... if a service not under our control is buggy and would respond badly to weirdness that it should respond sanely to 00:15:36 Trusting external services to be competent at security is a bad idea 00:18:35 oh shit 00:18:38 i like slept through _why's day 00:18:47 http://whytheluckystiff.net/ ok 00:18:53 tax day? 00:19:13

00:19:50 http://www.scribd.com/doc/136875051/-why-s-complete-printer-spool-as-one-book 00:26:20 elliott: holy shit i can't wait to read all of this 00:26:26 it's so _why!!! at a glance 00:28:39 I should stop talking about work 00:29:18 kmc: that sounds really cool, is there like, a link to the presentation? 00:35:25 -!- carado has joined. 00:35:31 -!- carado_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 00:37:07 not that i have 00:46:27 Is OWASP well-liked? Are any of its ideas flawed? 00:47:46 Suspect in custody. 00:48:34 Sgeo: i've found their wiki to be useful; it does vary a lot in quality though 00:49:18 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:52:46 "Common web application platforms such as Java Struts/J2EE, Ruby on Rails, and PHP can theoretically prevent developers from introducing most classes of vulnerability in the first place. However, the current state of the framework industry is more driven by features than by security; any conflict between the two is usually decided in favor of adding features and ease of use, as opposed to difficult-to-use security enhancements. Some framework 00:52:46 s even have built-in vulnerabilities out of the box!" 00:52:49 * Sgeo goes facepalm 00:52:56 I am beginning to hate everyone 00:53:05 Well, no, I was much angrier this morning 00:53:30 wait why are you hating people 00:55:43 It's generally good policy. 00:56:35 Because an external widely-used-by-lots-of-organizations competent-seeming web service has a blatant security issue 00:56:55 is that new 00:57:13 PHP prevents people from making security holes 00:57:15 shuuuuuure 01:04:54 -!- Nisstyre-laptop has joined. 01:16:54 that was time well spent. 01:18:29 hellolliott 01:18:43 MCALLISTER helloeegan 01:19:16 hi shachaf 01:21:22 -!- carado has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 01:21:32 WE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, QUALITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, QUIET ENJOYMENT, NON-ENCUMBRANCES, NO LIENS, AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION 01:21:44 I really wanted a warrany of quiet enjoyment. :-( 01:23:11 -!- mnoqy has joined. 01:23:46 -!- mnoqy has changed nick to monqy. 01:24:01 -!- monqy has changed nick to mnoqy. 01:24:20 mnoqy: hi 01:24:29 did monqy have any good messages 01:24:39 no 01:24:43 they were all bad 01:24:52 maybe next time, mnoqy. maybe next time 01:25:01 maybe not next time either 01:25:14 maybe not next time, olsner. maybe not next time 01:25:57 maybe never, shachaf. maybe never 01:26:47 -!- Nisstyre-laptop has quit (Quit: Leaving). 01:29:55 huh apparently that's a real thing 01:30:08 What is? 01:30:19 covenant of quiet enjoyment 01:33:48 -!- WeThePeople has joined. 01:40:07 -!- Bike has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 01:41:36 -!- Bike has joined. 02:01:06 https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Don%E2%80%99t_trust_services 02:05:55 -!- nooodl has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 02:36:44 -!- doesthiswork has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 02:46:46 -!- WeThePeople has quit (Quit: Leaving). 02:50:48 -!- heroux has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds). 02:51:27 https://www.owasp.org/index.php/How_to_write_insecure_code 02:51:52 -!- heroux has joined. 03:15:12 -!- sirdancealo2 has quit (*.net *.split). 03:15:12 -!- mroman_ has quit (*.net *.split). 03:18:00 -!- Nisstyre-laptop has joined. 03:20:12 -!- sirdancealo2 has joined. 03:20:12 -!- mroman_ has joined. 03:49:20 kmc: are you going to become a cryptographer 03:49:22 imo do it 03:50:02 imo imo 04:17:25 kmc: Did you know C++ supports try-catch for constructors? 04:18:00 Foo() try : x(...) { ... } catch(...) { ... } 04:25:26 Did you know you can use a try-block anywhere 04:25:38 It doesn't have to be a constructor 04:25:40 Jafet: ? 04:26:10 The usual try syntax doesn't involve an initializer list. 04:26:13 void f() try {} catch {} 04:26:27 Ah. 04:26:34 That's what you mean. 04:27:37 Sadly this isn't legal??? []()try{}catch(...){}() 04:27:50 :☹( 04:27:52 Why not? 04:28:00 Second class citizens 04:28:07 Tyranny etc 04:34:25 shachaf: wow 04:34:27 did not know 04:37:58 Jafet: do you know everything about c++ 04:38:30 Nobody knows everything about C++. I'm a nobody. 04:40:39 function-try-blocks are pointless on regular functions 04:40:52 but serve a distinct (if questionable) purpose for constructors 05:12:12 -!- heroux has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 05:14:05 -!- heroux has joined. 05:20:58 -!- Bike_ has joined. 05:21:11 -!- FreeFull_ has joined. 05:25:28 -!- Bike has quit (*.net *.split). 05:25:29 -!- FreeFull has quit (*.net *.split). 05:25:29 -!- hogeyui has quit (*.net *.split). 05:34:03 -!- heroux has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 05:35:07 -!- hogeyui has joined. 05:35:32 -!- heroux has joined. 06:14:09 -!- Sgeo has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 06:19:40 -!- Sgeo has joined. 06:31:49 -!- doesthiswork has joined. 06:33:38 -!- ogrom has joined. 07:12:25 can you be reached in http://imgur.com/W8gUtNi? 07:13:19 -!- Bike_ has changed nick to Bike. 07:14:14 is this a maths question 07:15:43 " I think what that game is missing is that it isn't taking place on a torus" one thing i'd like to do is to have a game where the play area is some fucked up manifold that changes its global form 07:15:50 but i dunno how that should work 07:16:55 -!- c00kiemon5ter has joined. 07:40:22 -!- mnoqy has quit (Quit: hello). 07:43:59 fizzie: it seems i have about 150000 points. i think i have to make some changes to the game. 07:45:52 -!- c00kiemon5ter has left. 08:02:34 -!- Bike has quit (Quit: leaving). 08:25:13 -!- Zerker has joined. 08:37:42 -!- ThatOtherPerson has joined. 08:55:12 -!- c00kiemon5ter has joined. 09:02:53 -!- epicmonkey has joined. 09:14:46 -!- FreeFull_ has changed nick to FreeFull. 09:16:15 -!- ais523 has joined. 09:17:17 I think I hit a new record for how undebuggable a bug can be 09:17:24 basically, I was bounds-checking against the wrong array 09:17:33 and thus any attempt to try values near the start of the array worked 09:21:19 -!- ogrom has quit (Quit: Left). 09:21:54 oklofok: Portal? 09:22:09 ais523: Hahah 09:22:39 it was eventually found via the time-honoured method of staring at the code without running it 09:23:19 As opposed to bisection search? 09:26:22 -!- carado has joined. 09:29:39 Zerker: on what? the array? 09:29:58 if I'd thought "perhaps the first half of the array is being treated differently" I'd have found the bug much faster 09:30:04 but it's not the sort of thing I tend to assume 09:30:05 The code :) 09:30:32 that'd involve trying to work out what the correct values were halfway through the code 09:31:35 Which is nontrivial even for one specific set of input values that has been proved not to work? 09:32:04 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sets_of_four_countries_that_border_one_another 09:32:17 I think most of my programs have been written for at most one input 09:34:05 My favorite debugging method is "hit random buttons until it works" 09:34:58 oklofok: I have 184319 points. 09:34:58 With code I write, I usually know what the bug is as soon as I see it 09:35:23 I think imma close the tab now. 09:35:45 fizzie: no 09:35:47 wait for it to overflow 09:35:53 I just did it. :( 09:36:36 you fool 09:37:11 afk for a length of time that will likely be between half an hour and an hour 09:37:59 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 09:43:09 -!- carado_ has joined. 09:50:40 -!- doesthiswork has quit (Quit: Leaving.). 09:52:38 -!- Zerker has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - Timeout (10 minutes)). 09:54:51 -!- Zerker has joined. 09:59:22 -!- ThatOtherPerson has quit (Quit: Page closed). 10:07:02 -!- nooodl has joined. 10:39:33 -!- xitrix has joined. 10:49:58 back 10:50:01 a bit more than an hour, it seems 10:56:23 -!- Zerker has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - Timeout (10 minutes)). 10:57:01 -!- Zerker has joined. 11:35:20 -!- nooodl has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 11:39:02 -!- carado has quit (Quit: Leaving). 12:06:29 -!- Zerker has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - Timeout (10 minutes)). 12:15:32 -!- nooodl has joined. 12:18:20 -!- sebbu has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 12:18:47 -!- sebbu has joined. 12:19:25 -!- sebbu has quit (Changing host). 12:19:26 -!- sebbu has joined. 12:29:21 -!- Koen_ has joined. 12:42:25 -!- btiffin has joined. 12:46:41 Thinking about a superhero eso. Should it be rigid, datatypes by hero, and action verbs by superpower? Or loosey goosey, code mixed as appropriate? Could be fun, detailing the Spiderman datatype, errr, non-trademarked-human-with-spider-like-powers (tm) linklist type 12:48:22 suggn. drop the idea if it's just "a superhero esolang" 12:48:38 themed languages rarely turn out well except as one-off jokes 12:48:56 and these days the joke has to be pretty original 12:51:25 Sound advice. Accepted. :-) 12:55:04 at least you didn't make it a brainfuck derivative 12:55:22 -!- Taneb has joined. 12:57:00 Ahh, but my first, cbrain, is. That's what I get for being new ;-) 12:57:53 on the topic of brainfuck derivatives 12:58:02 Taneb, it's been a while since i updated my blog 12:58:14 We all know whose fault that is 12:58:45 can i take that as a confession 12:59:02 The blame lies with my maths teachers, of course 12:59:06 I have homework to do 12:59:25 btiffin: thematic languages are OK as long as they tie the theme to the semantics somehow 13:00:06 fuck maths teachers 13:02:46 What's that blog that's the best for linking people who say web dev sucks because PHP 13:03:44 I think this is either a kmc or an elliott question 13:04:28 ais523: I predict superhero the language will remain an idea, pondered and not much else, as per Phantom_Hoover's reality check. 13:04:38 they're sort of right 13:11:12 Anyone here use REBOL? 13:11:41 no 13:11:51 even Sgeo didn't go that deep afaik 13:30:55 ...why the hell does str_rot13() exist in the PHP standard library 13:31:06 Does that even do what it looks like it does 13:33:48 -!- copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 13:34:24 -!- copumpkin has joined. 13:34:44 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 13:39:23 "[str_rot13] Changelog: Version 4.3.0: The behaviour of this function was fixed. Before this fix, the str was also modified, as if it was passed by reference." 13:39:27 Nice that it had a bug too. 13:41:00 -!- ThatOtherPerson has joined. 13:42:02 But, I mean, the standard library has things like "hebrev — Convert logical Hebrew text to visual text" and "convert_cyr_string — Convert from one Cyrillic character set to another". One should not be surprised. 13:43:57 (From what I can tell, convert_cyr_string is like mb_convert_encoding except it has one-character special names for the few encodings -- k for koi8-r, w for windows-1251, i for iso-8859-5, a or d for x-cp866 and m for x-mac-cyrillic -- it supports.) 13:58:42 -!- nooodl has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 14:03:14 -!- ion has quit (Quit: Thanks, btrfs. BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000008). 14:10:11 -!- ion has joined. 14:20:58 -!- ThatOtherPerson has quit (Quit: Leaving). 14:22:17 -!- Zerker has joined. 14:30:23 -!- ion has quit (Quit: btrfs kernel code dereferenced NULL again. Rebooting to recover.). 14:32:50 -!- Zerker has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - Timeout (10 minutes)). 14:33:12 I remember when I was little and lived in Australia there was a cartoon I used to watch that had a koala who used to say "Extra-ordinary!" 14:34:38 Blinky Bill, a googling reveals 14:36:29 -!- epicmonkey has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds). 14:37:04 -!- ion has joined. 14:42:17 -!- Zerker has joined. 14:46:46 I did play with REBOL a little, but not much 14:54:15 -!- Zerker has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - Timeout (10 minutes)). 14:58:56 -!- ThatOtherPerson has joined. 15:17:27 -!- nooodl has joined. 15:20:19 Help 15:20:31 In my head I just started comparing PHP to the English language 15:24:08 That... is the most awesome comparison 15:25:22 It's a mess that people claim is easy but really isn't. It's a god-awful mix of half a dozen other languages, combining features from each that weren't meant to be mixed 15:25:41 It is inconsistent and has dozens of stupid, arbitrary rules 15:28:15 and everyone knows it 15:28:37 But it's still really commonplace, it's the de facto language because it is the de facto language 15:34:35 does english have a bizarre unusual name for some common feature 15:35:04 if so it is a perfect comparison 15:39:27 -!- WeThePeople has joined. 15:44:46 So 15:44:49 You are saying 15:45:28 "English is a god-awful mix of half a dozen other languages, combining features from each that weren't meant to be mixed and it's inconsistent especially when it comes to spelling. 15:45:36 Nevertheless, everybody uses it because they got nukes." 15:46:05 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 15:46:08 mroman_, I think everyone started using it when the two most powerful countries were the British Empire and the US 15:46:09 where they = native tongues. 15:46:30 also 15:46:38 it's ruining other languages all over the world as well. 15:47:08 this conversation sounds bad 15:47:22 Phantom_Hoover, I started it, so it really is 15:47:29 this conservation smells bad. 15:47:59 Basically, English and PHP are kinda similar 15:48:08 Yeah. 15:48:15 They suck but everybody has to use it. 15:48:24 *them 15:48:43 It's probably already to late to push esperanto 15:48:56 Although 15:49:09 If NK really had nukes, they could push it 15:49:10 maybe. 15:49:16 not sure if they want to though. 15:49:17 probably not. 15:49:21 Esperanto wasn't that great if you weren't from western Europe, I seem to recal 15:49:24 l 15:49:29 Taneb: Yeah. 15:49:30 brb 15:49:38 NK would use nukes to force the rest of the world to learn esperanto? 15:49:53 wtf are you people going on about nukes for 15:50:14 there are 9 nuclear states, only 2 are anglophone 15:50:14 What? 15:50:19 Phantom_Hoover: no idea 15:51:01 Taneb: But asian languages probably all are very different from european languages. 15:52:26 Phantom_Hoover: Isn't it "Hey look at my nukes, can I haz free candy"? 15:52:49 'its vastly more complicated than that' 15:56:07 I'd advocate lojban, but I don't really want to. 15:56:51 What's lojban? 15:56:58 Some language based on logic. 15:57:04 oh dear 15:57:26 That wouldn't last long 15:58:08 Yeah. 15:58:48 I don't get it why they even wasted time invening lojban. 15:58:58 all previous languages failed 15:59:05 *inventing 15:59:17 why would they have thought that lojban wouldn't fail too 15:59:36 maybe they thought it'd be a fun exercise 16:00:12 although they... really obviously didn't 16:00:55 lol 16:01:07 you can copyright a language. 16:01:09 :) 16:01:29 that's useful. 16:03:18 And I highly doubt that laws will be written in Lojban. 16:03:43 They actually want the laws to be interpretable to weird extents. 16:04:08 *reinterpret 16:04:35 Wait, who wants loopholes in their laws? 16:04:42 Not loopholes. 16:04:47 ThatOtherPerson, how naive 16:04:55 D: 16:05:02 The judge is allowed to reinterpret the law as he pleases 16:05:05 (to some degree) 16:05:33 which means that nobody really knows what's lawful and what not. 16:06:00 which is why consulting a lawyer is usually useless 16:06:15 iirc, if you take two Lojban words and combine them in a certain way, you need to also know what that combined word means, not just the individual parts 16:06:18 because he can't tell you what you want him to tell you 16:06:41 wat 16:06:43 just wat 16:06:45 there's a 50% chance he tells you "well, that depends on how the judge interprets the law" 16:06:55 law :/ 16:07:00 mroman_ where do you even live 16:07:03 Switzerland. 16:07:07 That's how it works here. 16:07:09 somehow I view less ambiguity in laws as a good thing 16:07:21 do you not, like 16:07:28 have trial by jury in switzerland 16:07:43 there's no jury in switzerland. 16:08:37 i mean it's basically the same here except the jury does the interpreting 16:08:38 e.g when making a contract 16:08:52 there is a "template" in the law for contracts 16:09:05 which states what is what when not otherwise defined in the contract 16:09:11 but anyone saying 'lawyers are useless, don't bother with them' makes me think they're running their mouth off 16:09:21 some of the things in that "template" can be overwritten in the contract 16:09:23 some can not. 16:09:23 Really, what good would a programming language where anything you say is "up to interpretation" be? 16:09:34 And you would think the law tells you which can be overwritten or not 16:09:37 but the law does not. 16:09:45 (at which point someone will probably give me a link to a language like that -_-) 16:09:46 "everything should basically work like computers, it'd be perfect" 16:09:49 the judge decides that as he pleases. 16:10:11 Phantom_Hoover: They are not useless. 16:10:18 but they can't answer all the questions. 16:10:22 -!- carado_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 16:10:31 You can't tell them a scenario and expect them to tell you whether it is legal or not. 16:10:31 ThatOtherPerson: I think there's a joke about C and undefined behavior here XP 16:10:41 because they don't know it 16:11:22 In copyright law 16:11:33 There are absolutely no objective criterias for when something falls under copyright or not 16:11:53 you effectively don't know if something falls under copyright law or not UNTIL a judge said "yes" or "no". 16:12:00 -!- carado_ has joined. 16:12:17 you can still guess at how the judge will interpret it 16:12:24 Yes. 16:12:28 and i daresay for most matters a lawyer knows better than you 16:12:28 But guessing is not knowing. 16:12:48 Really, it reminds me of how a professor told Isaac Asimov "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you have the slightest idea what it's about?" 16:12:51 The objective of your laywer is to get the judge to interpret the law in a certain way. 16:13:02 but you can't guarentee that. 16:13:11 Now I can't get the picture of the Python interpreter saying that to someone out of my mind 16:14:30 or murder. 16:14:36 It's only murder if you brutally kill someone. 16:14:43 what the fuck is everyone talking about and why... 16:14:46 but what "brutally kill someone" means depends on the judge ;) 16:14:58 wtf 16:15:07 is that the definition of murder in switzerland 16:15:41 If you kill someone by accident it's not murder. 16:15:48 yes 16:15:55 i.e. murder is intentional killing 16:16:01 not 'brutal' 16:16:13 you can accidentally kill someone brutally 16:16:14 it's not enough @intentional killing 16:16:32 brutal certainly doesn't even come close 16:16:36 elliott: We're all having separate monologues that are only slightly related 16:16:36 but still 16:16:49 -!- ais523 has quit. 16:17:11 mroman_: what if you politely kill someone? 16:17:13 i don't get anything 16:17:31 it's the judge who says if you killed someone intentional or not. 16:18:51 murder has to be intentional AND extreme 16:18:52 * ThatOtherPerson gives elliott something 16:19:15 I mean, I'm pretty sure it's the same in the US 16:19:20 except the jury has more say? 16:19:27 If the law were clear you would not need a jury. 16:19:49 are you sure there's not some kind of language barrier here... like if i make a detailed plan to kill someone and then go up to them and poison them or whatever i am going to get arrested for murder 16:19:55 but none of that is very brutal 16:20:00 So your lawyer has to persuade the jury to make a certain decision? 16:20:06 mroman_: the jury isn't so much for interpreting the law as for saying whether or not someone actually did the crime 16:20:17 h. 16:20:18 Ok. 16:20:19 at least, that's my understanding 16:20:22 Thet it's something else :) 16:20:30 "If the law were clear you would not need a jury." <-- is this meant to be an argument against interpretation? surely you can see the disadvantages of a totally unambiguous law that covers every single case and is rigorously adhered to 16:20:42 -!- Bike has joined. 16:21:03 elliott: I can see the disadvantages, yes. 16:21:11 both versions have them. 16:21:33 the ambigous law version has the disadvantage that you can't make a 100% statement whether something is legal or not. 16:21:46 until a judge decided on legal or not 16:21:58 in which case other judge later will usually refer to the previous ruling. 16:22:02 *judges 16:22:12 but they don't have to, of course. 16:22:54 As a citizen I want to know if somethin is legal or not 16:24:43 but it turns out that you don't have a chance in most cases 16:24:58 even if you consult a lawyer in advance. 16:25:13 except for cristal clear cases 16:25:27 Like: "Do I have to pay my taxes?" 16:26:55 I consulted a lawyer once 16:27:10 It was about if you meet your friends to do sports 16:27:24 and then some kids gather and play with you 16:27:39 are you liable for what happens to those kids? 16:27:49 in terms of "parental watch" 16:27:54 or whatever that term is in english. 16:28:20 that's actually a simple question which occurs daily. 16:28:28 but he could not give me a "yes" or "no" answer. 16:28:57 and that's the day I completely lost trust in the legal system. 16:29:27 esentially every day you live in a legal gray area and you have no clue what you have to do and what not. 16:29:46 is this a poem 16:29:52 No, it's a monologue. 16:30:01 a sad one. 16:30:17 because I'm very frustrated about the legal system :) 16:30:36 I'm supposed to follow the law 16:30:50 but the law can't tell me for sure if I'm following it or not. 16:30:56 I SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING: --- 16:31:19 --- is pretty rad 16:31:25 That feels like the state is mocking me. 16:31:44 the state is mocking you, personally 16:31:52 and snickering with its buds 16:32:02 and doesn't what me to know so he can beat me up whenever he wants to. 16:32:06 *want 16:32:26 which he actually can. 16:32:45 the state is generally immensely concerned with persecuting random programmers 16:32:55 let's face it you have 0 risk of actually getting beaten up by the state so why do you care 16:33:06 elliott: The risk of that is > 0. 16:33:17 ;telksr;dlfgjdhlsr; 16:33:19 and the legal system is set up this way for that express purpose, not because it's actually quite a sensible way of building it 16:33:23 I care about everything. 16:33:42 If there's a risk I must be afraid everyday of it happening. 16:33:53 because it just might. 16:34:08 right now there's a risk i will get so sick of this that i destroy the internet entirely 16:34:14 Yeah. 16:34:16 start worrying 16:34:18 But I don't care about the internet. 16:34:24 So I don't worry about that. 16:34:24 wtf are you worrying about the law for then 16:34:41 what about cars and showers, then 16:34:50 mroman_ fought the law and the law won 16:35:08 how many kinds of drunk or high are you anyway 16:35:08 -!- kmc has set topic: Bible camp's cancelled. | | I am making the world better by CONFUSING THE TIME CUBES | Underhanded C Contest: http://underhanded.xcott.com/?page_id=5 | http://codu.org/logs/_esoteric/. 16:35:10 So far I won. 16:35:22 a blank topic thing? what is this 16:35:33 nooo 16:35:34 elliott: I don't drink. 16:35:39 -!- kmc has set topic: Bible camp's cancelled. | I am making the world better by CONFUSING THE TIME CUBES | Underhanded C Contest: http://underhanded.xcott.com/?page_id=5 | http://codu.org/logs/_esoteric/. 16:35:43 ty Bike 16:35:51 mroman_, but do you drug 16:35:52 my body doesn't process alcohol. 16:35:53 maybe you should 16:35:55 i am the topic lawyer 16:35:57 Bike: there were actually 50 zero width invisible multiocular Os in that space 16:36:00 and I don't do drugs because they are definetely illegal. 16:36:08 :o 16:36:08 are they 16:36:15 it's all a matter of interpretation after all 16:36:20 "drugs" in general aren't illegal, what the hell 16:36:27 If I were to posses drugs I would be afraid every second that the police will find them. 16:36:35 * Fiora panics 16:36:36 I would literally be shaking. 16:36:39 I have ibuprofen in my bathroom! 16:36:56 FIORA THIS IS THE POLICE. GIVE UP NOW. WE KNOW YOU DEAL WITH HEADACHES 16:36:58 mroman_ you should possibly See Someone about your crippling anxiety 16:37:10 Fiora: arrested for crimes against livers?? 16:37:18 I did. 16:37:22 But turns out they can't help you. 16:37:35 They can drug you, but that doesn't fix the actual problem. 16:37:37 meanwhile: fuck i hate sunny days 16:37:59 I have prescription drugs! 16:38:00 FUCK! 16:38:24 pikhq_: yes, some presecription drugs help fuck 16:38:24 also they don't actually want to help you. 16:38:49 coppro: 'Fraid this one has an occasional side effect of hindering fuck. Alas. 16:38:51 yes I have prescription drugs too @_@ I even have schedule 4 drugs 16:38:57 * Fiora flails panicingly 16:39:03 which schedule is that 16:39:13 one of the least regulated on the list? <.< 16:39:19 4 is the wimpiest one right 16:39:27 oh apparently there is a 5 16:39:30 um, I think 5 is? I'm not sure 16:39:40 what are schedule drugs? 16:39:46 Drugs you have to schedule daily? 16:39:48 categories of restricted drugs in the US 16:39:57 cannabis is schedule 1 and cocaine is 2 or something right 16:40:01 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedules_of_controlled_substances 16:40:06 because cannabis is bad 16:40:11 slightly badder than cocaine 16:40:15 we have classes here 16:40:31 e.g. codeine/cocaine/morphine/oxycodone are II 16:40:39 (why are drug classificiations always school-themed? there's a conspiracy here i'll bet) 16:40:55 haaaa why are so many of the schedule Is non-habit-forming hallucinogenics 16:40:57 ok yes cannabis is schedule I 16:41:07 Bike: because they're bad!!! 16:41:10 -!- DHeadshot has joined. 16:41:10 Is cannabis that worse? 16:41:11 Bike: Hallucinating is baaaad. 16:41:15 Bike: I think "schedule I" is "things with no legitimate use" 16:41:17 There are probably harder drugs 16:41:20 not specifically "it's worse" 16:41:29 Bike: stick to safer stuff like cocaine and PCP 16:41:33 what legitimate use is there for cocaine 16:41:36 of course marijuana being on there is dumb but there's some logic to it 16:41:43 Phantom_Hoover: topical anesthetic, apparently? 16:41:47