[Androgeos Exeunt]

No price too high

[BlueFlames]

Let's eat Grandma.
Let's eat, Grandma.

Punctuation saves lives.

A) When you notice a spill, notify your supervisor immediately before an accident occurs.
B) When you notice a spill, notify your supervisor immediately, before an accident occurs.

Which do you think showed up in safety training (twice!), while I worked at a blood plasma testing lab?

[Nuke]

when you notice a spill, ensure that your supervisor suffers an accident

[TopAce]

Let's eat Grandma.
Let's eat, Grandma.

Punctuation saves lives.

A) When you notice a spill, notify your supervisor immediately before an accident occurs.
B) When you notice a spill, notify your supervisor immediately, before an accident occurs.

Which do you think showed up in safety training (twice!), while I worked at a blood plasma testing lab?

A)

Nuke:

[deathfun]

Let's eat Grandma.
Let's eat, Grandma.

Punctuation saves lives.

A) When you notice a spill, notify your supervisor immediately before an accident occurs.
B) When you notice a spill, notify your supervisor immediately, before an accident occurs.

Which do you think showed up in safety training (twice!), while I worked at a blood plasma testing lab?

When you do a double comma, what is inside those two commas are more a sidenote. What is before and after the sidenote should be able to be put together without losing the complete thought.
In the case of this sentence... it does not complete the thought. Therefore, A is the correct answer.

A better fashion fashion to construct this sentence would actually be "Should you notice a spill, notifying your supervisor immediately won't mean **** as the time you take to tell him about it may be enough time for an old grandmother with a bad hip to slip on aforementioned spill. CLEAN IT THE **** UP FIRST"

[BlueFlames]

When you do a double comma, what is inside those two commas are more a sidenote. What is before and after the sidenote should be able to be put together without losing the complete thought.
In the case of this sentence... it does not complete the thought. Therefore, A is the correct answer.

When you have a sentence with multiple clauses, you always separate the clauses with a comma.  Not every instance of two commas appearing in a sentence implies the content in between is intended as a parenthetical/footnote.  That's why A is both incorrect and hilarious.  By not separating the independent clause from the second dependent clause, they become a single idea, rather than separate ideas.  Sentence A implies you should wait until right before an accident is supposed to occur before taking any action.  Sentence B tells you to take action immediately, with the additional warning that not doing so can result in an accident occurring.

A better fashion fashion to construct this sentence would actually be, "Should you notice a spill, notifying your supervisor immediately won't mean ****, as the time you take to tell him about it may be enough time for an old grandmother, with a bad hip, to slip on aforementioned spill. CLEAN IT THE **** UP FIRST!"

This is why I get a chuckle, whenever someone says that private business (i.e. corporate bureaucracy) is somehow better than public bureaucracy.  At that lab, a supervisor was required to investigate a spill, before anyone was allowed to clean it up.  If you were not a supervisor and had not been told by a supervisor to clean the spill up, then taking the initiative to clean it up would result in a black mark on your record.  You were supposed to cordon the spill area off too, but the wet floor signs and caution tape weren't stored in the lab-proper, so really, the whole spill cleanup procedure was just a shambles from the start.

[Nuke]

we dont need no grammers. aint ever needed none of that.

[Klaustrophobia]

When you do a double comma, what is inside those two commas are more a sidenote. What is before and after the sidenote should be able to be put together without losing the complete thought.
In the case of this sentence... it does not complete the thought. Therefore, A is the correct answer.

When you have a sentence with multiple clauses, you always separate the clauses with a comma.  Not every instance of two commas appearing in a sentence implies the content in between is intended as a parenthetical/footnote.  That's why A is both incorrect and hilarious.  By not separating the independent clause from the second dependent clause, they become a single idea, rather than separate ideas.  Sentence A implies you should wait until right before an accident is supposed to occur before taking any action.  Sentence B tells you to take action immediately, with the additional warning that not doing so can result in an accident occurring.

A better fashion fashion to construct this sentence would actually be, "Should you notice a spill, notifying your supervisor immediately won't mean ****, as the time you take to tell him about it may be enough time for an old grandmother, with a bad hip, to slip on aforementioned spill. CLEAN IT THE **** UP FIRST!"

This is why I get a chuckle, whenever someone says that private business (i.e. corporate bureaucracy) is somehow better than public bureaucracy.  At that lab, a supervisor was required to investigate a spill, before anyone was allowed to clean it up.  If you were not a supervisor and had not been told by a supervisor to clean the spill up, then taking the initiative to clean it up would result in a black mark on your record.  You were supposed to cordon the spill area off too, but the wet floor signs and caution tape weren't stored in the lab-proper, so really, the whole spill cleanup procedure was just a shambles from the start.

as someone who works in the mother of all government bureaucracies, let me just say that the general public perception of how retarded the government is in this regard doesn't even scratch the surface.  as an engineer, i'm not even allowed to TOUCH things.  if i need to shift a hose a foot to the left, i'm supposed to fill out a 'deficiency report' to have a different engineer come down and evaluate the situation, draft paperwork authorizing the move and providing instructions on how to do so, and a day or so later a team of shop workers will be dispatched to actually move the goddamn hose.

and "spill" is such a dirty word here that even the most foul-mouthed sailors are scared to say it.  i once cracked a joke using the word "spill" and the most inappropriate, hates his job and tries to break all the rules he can guy i've ever met in my life looked at me sternly and said "dude, not funny."

[Aardwolf]

Parenthetical phrases should be surrounded with parentheses. Parentheses ftw. Also em dashes are nice—just stick those anywhere—punctuation nazis be damned.

Still moving very slowly on the MultiSphereShape physics stuff

[deathfun]

Sidenote: Anyone noticed the Kickass button? I clicked it and shat bricks

When you have a sentence with multiple clauses, you always separate the clauses with a comma.  Not every instance of two commas appearing in a sentence implies the content in between is intended as a parenthetical/footnote.  That's why A is both incorrect and hilarious.  By not separating the independent clause from the second dependent clause, they become a single idea, rather than separate ideas.  Sentence A implies you should wait until right before an accident is supposed to occur before taking any action.  Sentence B tells you to take action immediately, with the additional warning that not doing so can result in an accident occurring.

You are indeed correct about it implying the "right before it occurs" aspect.

In the end, the general sentence sucks.

[Mongoose]

Someone on another forum I frequent posted this with a straight face.  Lord help us all.

[deathfun]

Cool

[Polpolion]

So at the coop I'm living in we pick which rooms we get based on house seniority, determined by how long you've lived in the house in semesters. Unfortunately this leads to a lot of ties and a need for lots of tie breakers. We use Rock-Paper-Scissors most often, which usually works well enough for seeing who "wins". Unfortunately when you have a 5 way tie things get a little hairy so I devised a recursive algorithm to handle the sorts. We'd play round robin RPS which would break us up into buckets of number of wins, more wins meaning more senior. Ties for numbers of wins would be dealt with by the same algorithm (hence recursion). Best case number of matches is (n²-n)/2 (n=number of contestants), assuming that no one ties for number of wins. Course since we had 5 people I noticed that it was possible that everyone get the same number of wins, in which case the problem wouldn't get any smaller and allowing an (unlikely) chance for infinite recursion, which is our worst case scenario. For everyone to have the same number of wins, obviously everyone needs to have the same number of losses as well, though I don't think wins necessarily equals losses. At first I thought this can possibly happen if (n²-n)/2 is even but not on odds. This led me to discover the interesting behavior of that expression in that the change between n's that give you even values alternates between 1 and 3 (ie they are 4,5,8,9,12,13,16,17...). Unfortunately when n=4 (n²-n)/2=6 you cannot have a complete tie. So my next guess would be when n is odd you get a possibility of a complete tie because with n-1 matches per person it is an even count of matches, meaning that it is possible to have wins == losses. Didn't think there was necessarily a connection at first but it seems totally obvious now: total wins and total losses during a set need to be equal just because that's how RPS works, and if we're assuming that everyone has the same number of wins, they'd need to have the same number of losses, and if the two values weren't equal then you'd get the total values not being equal, which can't happen since you can only win or lose RPS (toss out ties, which now that I think about it throws a wrench in here since happens pretty often). Anyway, point is that you should make sure to use a game that has more outcomes than people to determine rank. Otherwise you'd be better off picking some random quality to sort by, like first name.

[deathfun]

After reading that block of text, the conclusion I came to would simply be to see who can drink the most and not feel plastered

[Polpolion]

that would be more fun than the RPS contest, but it would take more time, too. just depends on what kinds of resources you have the most of.

[StarSlayer]

Have you ever tried evens odds instead of RPS? Cuts down on the ties.

[sigtau]

Just realized that I actually can't texture and I have been lying to myself this entire time.

****.

[Dilmah G]

Got my letter of offer in the mail today:

'Mr G, you are hereby made the following offer...

Function: Officer Under Training;

Rank: Officer Cadet.'

Would be the happiest day of my ****ing life if I didn't just get an allergist appointment done and basically get told by the allergist that because I have any reaction to peanuts, that I'm at risk of anaphylaxis due to some new research done...and anaphylaxis is somewhat of a dirty, Medical Class 4 :. Career-ending move.

I know that the Aus Army cater to peanuts (so long as you're NOT anaphylactic), but ****, am going to do everything in my power to make sure that report doesn't go through. Planning to spew some BS about it and get another allergist report to them by the end of next week written by a sane allergist who can respond to the actual question that was asked, 'What is Mr. dilmah's reactional severity?' which is M.I.L.D.

Honestly, the worst its ever gotten has had me on the crapper for half an hour - I honestly think I could still function in my role as a Lieutenant if I had to eat some left-over ****. Which shouldn't be an issue anyway, given that the ADF do peanut-free hotboxes.

[BlueFlames]

'What is Mr. dilmah's reactional severity?' which is M.I.L.D.

Just don't have the allergist write it in that format, or someone's going to think, "Major Inflamation and Likely Death." 

[Colonol Dekker]

Army food has EVERYBODY on the crapper for half an hour.


Don't worry about it.