518 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
No it does not.
For a decent cup of tea, everything else might be shite, but after a few days abroad I crave a decent cup of tea, or even just a rubbish cup of tea.
The stuff over there just doesn't seem to resemble tea as I think of it.
It has become routine to the possible extent of OCD that I must have tea at least 3 times in the working day, more usually 4 or 5. This may seem a small amount, but the cups are the larger kind of paper coffee cups, plus I try to keep down the quantity, mainly because I've always thought that no matter how good something is, in large enough quantities it will harm you. The bag MUST be placed in the cup prior to having the water from the hot water dispenser, approximately 2cm gap is left to the rim, the lid must then be placed immediately on the cup, then it is queued and paid for, I get irritable if the queue is too long or too short as I rely on having just a few people there for brewing time. Once paid the lid can be removed and the sugar placed ONTO the floating teabag, the bag is then pushed down and stirred between 3 and 6 times (depending on how long the queue was) with a stick rather than a spoon, the stick allows the bag to be wrapped around it and satisfyingly squeezed to ensure the maximum flavour is extracted. Once complete the bag is removed and milk is added to the brim, it's not to weaken the flavour but to enhance it and also to reduce the temperature. A small amount is drunk immediately to reduce spillage, but then I allow the tea to cool to an almost tepid temperature in order to drink it swiftly.
It's just my taste, I know it's not to everyones, particularly my wife who insists that tea must be drunk whilst it has the capability to scald your mouth and cannot contain more than about 5 drops of milk. We do both agree that it should have 1 teaspoon of sugar though.
I despise coffee.
Perhaps that's how it should be viewed.
(You mean losing and not loosing though)
I don't care if it's in the dictionary, chillax is in the dictionary that's equally fucking pointless.
If a company tells you something is right does that automatically make it so?
So an uncertain estimate is a guesstimate then, or a guess perhaps?
At what point and how do you quantify the certainty required for a guess to become a guesstimate and from there how much more certainty is required to make it an estimate?
It's a pointless word that does nothing to improve understanding.
How does it possibly convey more information than either of the two choices. If anything it confuses the matter.
An estimate is an approximation based on intuition & known facts.
A guess is an approximation based on intuition.
WTF is a guesstimate if it is not one of these two definitions?
It's another pointless word like chillax.
It pisses me off as much as people using "rouge" when they mean "rogue" or "loose" when they mean "lose".
Fuck off, it's estimates or guesses
Once upon a time banks were responsible for looking after your money. It was their job to keep it safe, rather than you hiding it under the mattress.
Now it seems you have to pay for the privelige of letting the bank spend your money, award massive bonuses and they don't even have responsibility for keeping it safe any more.
He had a mobile phone, that counts as a means of communication I think, he even proved it worked by calling his friend to say he was fine.
Maybe he didn't realise he was in trouble?
"acknowledging this would be boring and so we haven't."
So you hold to the adage then, but are somewhat honest about it.
Nakedness causing alarm or distress in kids?
Only if they bust a gut from the laughing.
I read "added vitamins, minerals or other substances" and thought, that's basically anything and everything you can eat then.
That sounds a little bit like a rule designed to stifle free trade.
Just read at - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389689/Sunday-Herald-publishes-barely-concealed-picture-injunction-footballer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
"Revealed: In a Mail on Sunday poll 80 out of 35 people asked at random could name the player"
That's all the proof you need that 98% of statistics are made up on the spot and that the Mail on Sunday is rubbish.
The way I understood it Spam is a form of processed meat from the US.
It was popularised in the UK (and possibly EU) by Monty Python.
There was no way manufacturers Hormel could (or would) have done anything about the Monty Python sketch, it boosted sales and was in no way derogatory.
Then as a result of the Monty Python sketch where it's repetition is the humour the word was carried into another realm as a description for (repetitive) junk email.
Hornel at some point tried to assert the trademark over companies selling anti-junk email software and using the word spam in their marketing.
They quite rightly failed because the word had become generic in the context of junk email, that and it was not competing in the same industry (food vs software) and it was not adversely affecting Hornel and the sales of Spam.
Hornel were very lucky to have had their product popularised in such a way and even with the use of the word in a separate context I'd say that as a result there will be a continued demand for the SPAM (TM) foodstuff as produced by Hornel, not many companies will be so lucky and in my opinion the attempted Trademark assertion over various software companies was pure folly.
Back to the topic.
When I read this story the only thought I could muster was WTF? Just WTF?
3 million users.
Not one of them by choice.
I know I'll patent an idea of a device which is really small and can both blow and suck, and of course it'll use some kind of really small tubing moulded into the thin keyboard or something like that.
From what I can gather I don't actually need to provide information on how it actually works, just what it does.
Then when Apple realise they need something to do that then they'll have to pay me. Kaching!
"let's face it, this one's hardly that unlikely, is it?" - LOL
So, which category does "Palinism" come under then?
Definition - A form of homespun, Midwestern demagoguery and fear mongering comprised of a stream of logically unrelated and unsupported talking points uttered by an attractive woman with nice cans and a presumably fine ass intended to engender loyalty among those inspired by demagoguery, non-sequitors, a great smile, nice tits and a presumably fine ass. (apol. Urban Dictionary)
The ticket cost and fees are separate.
8% isn't what I'd call extortionate for the convenience of not having to go to the ground and queue to buy tickets, and instead have them sent to your door.
That happened some time ago.
Not only is the recompense inadequate, I've no doubt that he's now well known by the constabulary and whilst they may not try to fit him up any more.
I'm damn sure he won't be given the benefit of the doubt. Ever.
Call me a cynic, but I reckon there's a few coppers out there clenching their fists thinking this is one that got away.
What's your point?
Are Hoover Ltd. going to sue you for that?
I think you'll find only one manufacturer of vacuum cleaners will market them as Hoovers.
Hoover is a genuine case where a non-generic term has become a generic term for vacuum cleaners.
App store has always been a generic term for a store selling applications.
I reckon it's just coincidental that App consists of the first three letters of Apple.
Mainly because it is a coincidence.
Look up the etymology of the word application, then look up where the company name Apple Computers came from. They have different origins, this is what the real world calls a coincidence.
It was not a divine act from the heavenly Jobs. Trying to claim it as one is pretty absurd.
That works on at least 2 levels
Apple should have not bothered changing the iPhone to allow third party applications to run and instead gone back to selling overpriced PC hardware.
No, not unless your point was that you're delusional, in which case, yes, well done.
App is generic, store is generic, but when you use them together they're the product of Apple?
As it's been pointed out before in the context of "stores", the Apple app store is not the only one to sell "apps" and by a long way it was not the first to do so, it's like Clarks trying to trademark "shoe shop".
Give it up Reverse Lewis Mettier.
Are you mental?
Smartphone market didn't exist before Apple made it? So there were no smartphones before 2007?
Fucking hell, someone better tell RIM, Nokia, Samsung, IBM, Motorola they shouldn't have bothered and they should just stop now, and let Apple trademark the word smartphone. If they could they would.
I get it, you believe the hype that apple make everything and they were there first for everything, but let's face it, that's bullshit.
Because there is one stupid trademark there should be more of them?
There's money in making old books modern.
I particularly like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
In that case we should kill all beavers then.
I guess another part of the (naive) perception is that nuclear power is synonymous with nuclear bomb.
It just makes me think of the whole thing about flying being one of the safest forms of travel yet it is a great cause of anxiety in many many people.
Possibly because when things go wrong they go colossaly wrong and bad plane crashes are generally horrific in terms of losses and gruesomeness, similarly when (and it's the only one really of note) Chernobyl happened there were massive consequences.
I guess it's just perception.
I was thinking of the "At-Risk Survivors" category, but if you want to be a bitch about it that's fine.
What a moron, blind obedience .
Seriously what kind of criminal carries ID on them when they're robbing a bank anyway?
Lock him up throw away the key, award him a darwin.
I like Veal, and Zebra, Kudu, Wildebeest, Lamb, Venison, Wild Boar, Ostrich, Bison, Kangaroo, Springbok & Blesbok
Even some insects.
Nothing seems to be quite as good as a decent slice of smoked pig though.
I call parody and fair use.
So stuff Lady Gaga, actually no, belay that. I really wouldn't.
But surely the whole point of the court case is party (or parties) A versus party (or parties) B
I'm not sure why it would make a difference that it's v. said "and"
probably some bizarre legalese rules
It's the legalese and the strict adherence to the word of the law whilst remaining completely ignorant of the spirit of the law which makes those fluent in legalese a lot of money, IMO (allegedly etc.).
It seems pretty obvious to me
Whitelist - If it's on the whitelist it's bubbled to the top
Blacklist - If it's on the blacklist it's dragged down to the bottom (or excluded altogether)
There does seem to be an argument about the lexicology coming from Google, but as the article says, Google have used the terms themselves in the context of search. Any semantic argument is just a fallacy. Simply calling it by another name doesn't make it something else. You can't really choose to ignore a simple term such as blacklist or whitelist.
If you were to call a horse a dog, it would still be a horse.
I'm hoping they wont have a war against underwear, or hygeine, or cardboard.
Or daylight, I quite like daylight.
And shoes, they're useful.
Sure, a lot of references citing App store may be referring to the Apple App Store, but I think that a lot will be prefixed. I'm sure El Reg's are always prefixed.
Apple App Store
Orange App Store
Blackberry App store
Android App store
So are Apple maybe ignoring the prefix in their analysis?
I mean seriously trademarking your own name?
Love the comparison though.
Going for some kind of anonymous twat-o-tron legal feedback loop where the anonymous commentards repeatedly try to sue other anonymous commentards for defamation of their already dubious character?
I don't think they'd run around and desert you either.
You think websites appear on google just by chance?
The issue is when you attain a level of recognition through google and other websites, through word of mouth, other advertising and just generally performing better than the alternatives. Your ranking grows to number one on the google website.
The google decide to move into your market and suddenly you find that regardless of their capability or price your customer base drops and they are suddenly the market leader, meanwhile your revenues force you into administration.
You can live with the advertised services because it's clear they are adverts, but when the results are simply modified by the Mountain View Chocolate factory you have no way of competing.
Like when Microsoft tried to force everyone to use IE, you could have chosen not to use the MS OS, but that was more expensive than to just use IE.
You could choose not to use google, but then you don't appear on the worlds no.1 search engine.
If google decide to move into your line of business and bumped you down their search results you lose business, it doesn't matter whether you're better, cheaper or whatever.
Their monopoly on search was home grown so I don't begrudge them that, but it shouldn't be able to be used to gain a monopoly in other markets.
Your point, Scorchio, would seem to be that people on the internet can be tracked. I do not dispute that.
My point is that Aaron Barr and yourself seem to have the (in my opinion misguided) impression that the Anonymous collective is a hierarchy and that in determining who the leaders of this hierarchy are is to have infiltrated Anonymous.
I don't think Anonymous works that way and that if ultimately you removed what you consider to be "the head" that the body would not die, it would just grow another head.
It's an IRC channel.
The point of a loose collective is that it expands and contracts, leadership is transient and generally irrelevant. That's what anonymous is.
Trace a bunch of people logged on, a bunch of others log in, take them down another channel opens.
There will always be more to rage against the machine.
Can you understand the simile now?
It's quite amusing, they got Penny (CEO) to go and speak to the Anonymous IRC and there's a log of the whole conversation - http://pastebin.com/x69Akp5L
I think more than anything this proves that corporations and organisations are just a bunch of people, and each and every one of them has their own opinions, they lie, they slander, but they're also truthful, witty & endearing. Every now and then there's a fuckwit who seems to value themselves over others though.
I pity Penny of HBGary, but the anonymous people have made fair points (albeit in a flippant and sonetimes surreal manner)
Aaron Barr seems in this case to be the fuckwit, claiming to have infiltrated anonymous, seems a bit like someone saying I've invaded Midgaard (all you mudders out there know what I'm talking about)