Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Cynic
Prince
Posts: 2776
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Cynic »

Straight razors shave closer because there isn't a guard in the middle. Of course, Straight razors are also keen to cut deep rather than nick like Safety razors.

safety razors are much, much easier to use. That is the reason for popularity.

Multiple blades do give a cleaner probably due to the angle.

The newspaper link that says shaving without the battery running on the fusion is dangerous is, in my experience with it, bunk.

I personally use an electric rotator razor these days. It's efficient and safer for me. Also, all i do is moisturize my face a few minutes before the shave and pat it dry with my hands and then go to it. Electric razors suck though if you have particularly long hair that you have to shave. You have to first trim it and then shave it or the razor will yank it out of your skin forcibly. Which hurts a lot when you go over a three inch diameter of your face. Also leads to hella lot of bumps for me.

I love barber shaves though, too bad, most barbers these days don't shave. It's hard to find an old-fashioned barber shop that still owns a straight-blade license.

Also, on a similar note, if you get a shave in a barbershop in India, they massage your face and head afterwards with oil, crack/pop your neck, shoulders, and surprisingly your ears. A friend broke his nose once, and instead of going to the hospital, he just stepped to the barbershop couple of buildings from where he was and for 1/10 the price, he got it fixed. It's like the good old fashion "barbershops" that appear in the new Godfather video games.
Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.
User avatar
Absentminded_Wizard
Duke
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Absentminded_Wizard »

I've found that electric razors are much better if you shave with them every day. If I go three days without shaving, it's much harder to get a good shave out of one.

As for safety razors, it seems like the mulitple-blade models shave a little closer than single-blades, but not by a huge amount. One thing I've noticed is that I seem to nick myself a lot less with the triple-blades. But then again, I've always used the generic store-brand version of both.
Doom314's satirical 4e power wrote:Complete AnnihilationWar-metawarrior 1

An awesome bolt of multicolored light fires from your eyes and strikes your foe, disintegrating him into a fine dust in a nonmagical way.

At-will: Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee Weapon ("sword", range 10/20)
Target: One Creature
Attack: Con vs AC
Hit: [W] + Con, and the target is slowed.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

My beard grows too fast to reasonably shave.

I have shaved in the morning, late, got in my car, started driving, arrived at a job interview, around late lunch, with noticeable stubble.

They asked me if I was a bikie. (What some of you would call a "biker" whatever that means...)

These days I just keep the beard and employ myself.

I'm basically an Ewok really. (Covered in hair, lives in wilderness, self employed)
User avatar
Meikle641
Duke
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Meikle641 »

I've been using disposable straight razors for the last year or so, when I need to actually be clean shaven. When I used to use Mach 3s and such, I'd always got horrible infected hairs and irritated skin on my neck. With the straight razors I find I get a better shave and don't have any of the nasty side-effects.

That said, I've bought some real straight razors, but they need to be sharpened before I can use them.
Official Discord: https://discord.gg/ZUc77F7
Twitter: @HrtBrkrPress
FB Page: htttp://facebook.com/HrtBrkrPress
My store page: https://heartbreaker-press.myshopify.co ... ctions/all
Book store: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/ ... aker-Press
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Well, while we're talking about annoying questions that I want answered, let's talk about blackmail for a bit.

If you threaten to expose damaging information about someone in exchange for a good for service, that's blackmail and you're going to get prosecuted.

However, if you threaten to expose damaging information about someone just because you want to watch them squirm and destroy their personal life--and refuse payment or whatnot--that's not blackmail.

Why not?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Cynic
Prince
Posts: 2776
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Cynic »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Well, while we're talking about annoying questions that I want answered, let's talk about blackmail for a bit.

If you threaten to expose damaging information about someone in exchange for a good for service, that's blackmail and you're going to get prosecuted.

However, if you threaten to expose damaging information about someone just because you want to watch them squirm and destroy their personal life--and refuse payment or whatnot--that's not blackmail.

Why not?
It is probably because of the lack of an actual good aside from sadistic pleasure being obtained. This could be prosecuted as something else though.
Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.
User avatar
Gelare
Knight-Baron
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

Post by Gelare »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Well, while we're talking about annoying questions that I want answered, let's talk about blackmail for a bit.

If you threaten to expose damaging information about someone in exchange for a good for service, that's blackmail and you're going to get prosecuted.

However, if you threaten to expose damaging information about someone just because you want to watch them squirm and destroy their personal life--and refuse payment or whatnot--that's not blackmail.

Why not?
I'm reasonably certain your second example gets prosecuted as something else. Harassment, or some junk like that. If you want a real talking point, here's one: blackmail should be legal. It should be 100% legal to write contracts saying "I agree not to divulge such-and-such information for a period of x years in return for a semiannual payment of $1000," and such contracts should be enforceable in court, with penalties imposed on those who break said contracts. This way, instead of not knowing how often the blackmailer will come to extort you (and therefore not being able to effectively judge the relative costs of paying off the blackmailer or telling him to shove it up his ass), everything's spelled out and enforceable. Discuss.
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

I don't see how it can be applied. Perhaps it can work in some edge cases.
Embarrassing blackmail material is something people don't want to put on paper, even in a roundabout way: "I agree not to tell anyone about my neighbor's weird sexual fetish". Info on crimes is something you don't want to be hidden at all. Stuff that's not important is not worth the lawyer fees.
LAST CRUSADER
NPC
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:50 pm
Location: PELL CITY ALABAMA
Contact:

Re: Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Post by LAST CRUSADER »

Maj wrote:So I had a medical practitioner tell me this week that I shouldn't give my baby a bottle anymore because drinking from a nipple spreads whatever liquid is being drunk around a baby's mouth more than drinking out of a glass.

How does that even work?

He's an idiot. Not all medical professionals are qualified
THE SUPER HERO GENRE IS ABOUT THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL. IT DEALS WITH THE MYSTERIOUS AND MIRACULOUS IN A SYMBOLIC WAY. ANYONE WHO DOESN'T REALIZE THAT SUPERHEROES ARE ABOUT RELIGION, ISN'T REALLY PAYING ATTENTION.
http://supercrusaders.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Post by Crissa »

Actually, such contracts are legal.

They're called Non-Disclosure Agreements and are often tacked onto legal settlements or corporate contracts.

-Crissa
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

Crissa wrote:They're called Non-Disclosure Agreements and are often tacked onto legal settlements or corporate contracts.
Non-disclosure agreements are perfectly legal, but threatening to reveal the info they protect is not usually termed "blackmailing". Also, these agreements do not usually provide any optional money per se - they are required to get a job and any money at all. Even if there's a State Worker Rank II salary (schoolteacher, 100 gp) and State Worker Rank II salary (security officer, Secrecy 3, 100+20 gp), there's no way for a security officer to opt out of Secrecy and not receive the Secrecy bonus.

I signed my first NDA when I was studying at the university: as the university is funded by and all lab equipment belongs to the state, whatever I could have discovered whie working or studying had to belong to the state too. If I discovered cold fusion and wrote to the government, "Give me 10M or I'll give the technology to bin Laden", that would qualify as extortion, but not specifically blackmail:
Google first hit wrote:blackmail: extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
Neeeek
Knight-Baron
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:45 am

Post by Neeeek »

Gelare wrote: If you want a real talking point, here's one: blackmail should be legal.
Generally speaking, society doesn't want people to keep information they could use to blackmail someone to themselves, which is why you can't contract to keep from reporting a criminal act. Merely financially crippling (though this would often have criminal ramifications as well due to disclosure regulations) or personally embarrassing are easier to defend as something you should be able to contract into, but it's a slippery slope and it's just easier to make one law to cover every blackmail subset.
User avatar
Gelare
Knight-Baron
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

Post by Gelare »

Crissa wrote:Actually, such contracts are legal.

They're called Non-Disclosure Agreements and are often tacked onto legal settlements or corporate contracts.

-Crissa
Just FYI, those are legal, but often non-enforceable. They seriously get ignored or thrown out of court all the time.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Post by Maj »

In Beyonce's video, "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)," she keeps saying that if [he] liked it, he should have put a ring on it. The implication, of course, is that her guy should have asked her to marry him.

But she's wearing armor [only] on the hand that you put the engagement ring on (in the US). Doesn't that also imply that she would have turned him down?
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Maj wrote:In Beyonce's video, "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)," she keeps saying that if [he] liked it, he should have put a ring on it. The implication, of course, is that her guy should have asked her to marry him.

But she's wearing armor [only] on the hand that you put the engagement ring on (in the US). Doesn't that also imply that she would have turned him down?
I think it means that she'd turn him down if he asked now.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

It's because women are spoiled [EDITED] that want to put a man in chains before they give him anything positive, then use denial of that to continue to control him. Women aren't hard to understand, they're essentially malevolent.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:It's because women are spoiled [EDITED] that want to put a man in chains before they give him anything positive, then use denial of that to continue to control him. Women aren't hard to understand, they're essentially malevolent.
Haven't we done this dance before, Count? Women aren't evil just because your wife was the butch in your relationship.
Parthenon
Knight-Baron
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm

Post by Parthenon »

I really hate those lyrics. Its like you can only have a long term monogamous relationship if you get engaged or married.

I mean, personally I think that long term relationships should have public acceptance of that fact, even if it is just letting everyone know via facebook that the two people are in a monogamous relationship for the foreseeable future. But this is saying that it is okay to break up just because they aren't married, or that marriage is the only indicator of relationships.

But the armoured hand? I can see two possibilities:
[*]That as you say, she wouldn't have accepted the proposal, in which case shes just making up excuses for breaking up.
[*]The engagement ring would have been "armour" to stop unwanted attention and keep her within the relationship. Which sort of suggests that she would have cheated anyway.

So no, I can't really see any innocent explanation. Although I suddenly got the image of her dancing with a chastity belt on, with a stereotypical engagement or wedding ring instead of a padlock, possibly with intercut images of the guy proposing with that ring to make it stupidly obvious.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Post by Maj »

Parthenon wrote:I really hate those lyrics.
There is nothing about that video that I like, including the singer - which may, in fact, be why I'm tending toward's Count Arioch's view in this particular instance.
Parthenon wrote:I can't really see any innocent explanation.
I tried looking at it from Angel's perspective - that if he asked her now, she'd say no - but failed. The idea that if you don't do what the chick wants, when she wants, you don't get what you want seems ridiculous to me.

I like both of your ideas. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that it may just be a potential stupidity on the part of the video makers: how do we differentiate between Beyonce's costume and the others? Metal glove!
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
User avatar
CatharzGodfoot
King
Posts: 5668
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by CatharzGodfoot »

Last edited by CatharzGodfoot on Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack

User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

The sad thing is that Kanye was right. As terrible as Beyonce and that video are, they're still better than Taylor's Swift's.

Sexist, cynical, and lazy beats epically and hypocritically delusional any day of the week.
User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17340
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Maj wrote:In Beyonce's video, "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)," she keeps saying that if [he] liked it, he should have put a ring on it. The implication, of course, is that her guy should have asked her to marry him.

But she's wearing armor [only] on the hand that you put the engagement ring on (in the US). Doesn't that also imply that she would have turned him down?
I think it means that she'd turn him down if he asked now.
I think it implies there aren't two brain cells to rub together amongst any of the people involved with that video.
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by tzor »

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:I've found that electric razors are much better if you shave with them every day. If I go three days without shaving, it's much harder to get a good shave out of one.
I generally use an electric razor most of the time and a multi blade disposable one or twice a week. The reason for this is that I have a variety of hairs on my beard and the slowest, thinnest growing ones don’t get cut by my current electric. Plus I still have my bar of shaving soap made from goat milk.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

angelfromanotherpin wrote: Hurf durf, Count Arioch is basing his opinions on one women durf. Even though he's clear that he isn't hurf derpyderpy doo. Now I'm going to eat some feces.
Thank you, you will be on ignore from now on. If you can't bother to read my posts and make judgements on your preconceived notions, I literally have no use for you as a human.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Alright, a question from me: How come every time I've been to the hospital in the last couple years, they give me a saline IV regardless of what I'm in there for? I asked them the last time and the nurse said "We just do this to everybody".

Second part: Is it harmful if I just tell them to bugger off if they don't have a better reason than that? Because an IV and a saline bag costs almost a grand. Per bag.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Post Reply