I'd say he's
Smart for figuring it out, stupid for talking about it.
That's vanity for you.
542 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
Smart for figuring it out, stupid for talking about it.
That's vanity for you.
You take the number of places where there are phosphorous, count them.
Then you take that same number of places and here's the critical part, you "add" the number of places where there is arsenic.
I'm no expert of course, but I reckon and I could be going out on a limb here, but the second number is bigger than the first number.
For my records can anyone let me know what the figure is for "a single-spouse decision"?
I may need to berate my wife over her opinion of what that figure is when it comes to buying shoes.
Or it may afford me greater freedom to expand my NAS.
It's just some "contracts" are more open about the cost.
"Girls in India are being beheaded by their own families." - olds
"Girls in India are being banned from having phones." - news
No, it's not a crime against an individual.
It's a crime against the entire tax paying population of the UK.
Consider the services funded by 40m tax, isn't the NHS funded by the taxpayer?
I wonder if any underfunded NHS hospitals have had anybody die in them because a drug wasn't available or a neo-natal unit didn't have the equipment it needed, there'll be some individuals affected there, hope you don't end up being one of them.
Considering they've asked him to pay back £40m and two other gang members £3.8m and £4.7m.
I'd be assuming it was a very uneven split and this guy was the ringleader, directors get paid in the millions while people working for a company get less than 10% a directors salary, why do you assume that criminals do not operate on a similar sliding scale?
It's not like this was the great train robbery, there wasn't a bundle of cash with some crooks round it saying one for you, one for me, one for you, one for you etc.
And as for the did he refuse or did he simply not have the money, he's a criminal.
By what means are you going to detemine "He doesn't have the money", you can easily appear to have no money whilst having a crapload of stuff and a crapload of money, particularly if you're a criminal (which this guy is, if it wasn't clear) if he turns around and says "I'd really love to pay you back, but I don't have the money (my dog ate it)" are you going to believe him? (Just to be absolutely clear, he's a CRIMINAL)
Here's the logic in the request -
"Tell us where the fucking money is so we can take it back and we might let you out of jail"
Or would you prefer the guy to walk free and then suddenly find £40m quid (it was down the back of the sofa, never knew it was there, how lucky is that)?
So.. is that enough slapping down?
I say well done for the amount of informmation you're sharing and have shared. I'm glad that you haven't tried to monetize the whole thing, which would be something I would expect from the traditional press.
Clearly from this project we can determine you are fans of the open source development model, at least as far as paper plane construction is concerned :-)
I've been following the whole thing from the start and it's been brilliant.
Thanks for the entertainment, long may it continue.
Since I lost 2 80Gb of their drives within minutes of each other when they were in a raid 5 array, that seriously pissed me off.
Never bought Hitachi since.
Do any Reg readers know what the first .uk domain was?
Slave labour tends to be unpaid.
I personally despise aubergines far more than I dislike lettuce.
I only have this to say on the matter.
Who actually writes "Tsk." and more to the point what does it actually mean?
Incidentally I heard to make the new iPad it takes an average of 4 orphans to produce the shattered dreams and 12 angels tears to distill the magic they put into the device.
I'm guessing that's because neither of them have anything you could call "customer service".
You buy/rent the thing(s) you want and as far as they're concerned you can fuck off after that, they'd rather not talk to you.
Still I much prefer Amazon's method which is to just refund/replace based on the input from an online form than Lovefilms Indian call centre who I'd say are probably the rejects from all the other indian call centres.
Could the same argument not also be applied to internet gambling?
America has decided to make gambling online illegal, whilst domestic casinos are okay?
From what I can gather the prohibition isn't working anyway, perhaps it's time they got their own firewall to protect them from the dangers of free trade.
I wouldn't trust anything expensive in the hands of a 5 year old.
But then I wouldn't trust my 5 year old into the hands of a christian school either.
(the joke would probably have been better if it was described as a catholic school, but thems the breaks)
I'd say a lot of people don't know how lucky they are. I was getting away with using Outlook at work until recently when they made up some bullshit about security policy meaning that people working on certain accounts have to use the internal servers, so I've been forced to use Lotus Notes. I say the policy is bullshit, it's not about security, the Notes servers and our laptops are all managed by people in Mumbai anyway, and as such can't be used for government restricted information anyway.
Lotus Notes is possibly the worst piece of shit email client I've ever had the misfortune to use. That's all it's used for, mail and calendar, I know it's more than all that, but who gives a crap when all you want is mail and a calendar?
The guy goes all txt speaky and then chooses to add an additional letter to a word.
I really hate that typo.
Other than that it's clear monumental stupidity is still prevalent in some sectors of the populace
I'm calling them all nutjobs.
Although the French less so, how is the banning of this symbol not religious suppression? It's suppression by a religious organisation. They believe the symbol to be one of religious significance otherwise they wouldn't be trying to SUPPRESS it.
The subtle difference is one's the suppression OF religion and the other is suppression BY religion. In my opinion the latter justifies the former.
I am not particularly religiously tolerant, I'd prefer a world where there were no believers in spaghetti monsters from space. Where people didn't threaten to kill people for drawing cartoons of fictitious or real people. A world free from the my god's better than your god crap.
An educated world where people don't need to believe, they're allowed to think for themselves.
There have been a lot of good things done in the name of various religions, there have also been a vast number of atrocities done in the name of religions too. It's time to stop that sort of rubbish.
Science isn't a religion.
Developers own the copyright to software unless the developer is the client's employee or the software is part of a larger work made for hire under a written agreement. In order to own the copyright, the client must have an agreement transferring ownership from the developer to the client.
verbatim from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29584.html
I'm not sure that this is what's involved here though. I'd say it's to do with the investment of $1000 and the contract surrounding that investment (as TFA states in the last paragraph)
The replacement of "I" with "We" is a common indicator of a lie being told though.
Mainly because the mighty are a bunch of self obsessed wankers who lie cheat and steal to profit themselves.
There is an opinion that this by definition means they are "clever", my opinion is different.
the official Reg phrase was "Jesus phone" and Judas phone was just another part of the parody.
Did I get that wrong?
Jesus was the good guy, Judas the bad guy and all that...
iCall fair use
though I don't suppose that'll stop the iThreats
Who is she then?
But now they will have to answer the follow up question of...
"Why did you think the person was a terrorist?"
I somehow doubt that an answer of
"because he was taking photos of the houses of parliament"
would actually be considered reasonable grounds for suspicion, so plod would get a rap on the wrists and told not to do it again.
That's an altogether better outcome than not actually having the question asked in the first place.
Plus the more people who are aware of their rights the less likely people are going to hand over their cameras when plod demands they do so.
but at least they'll have to answer for their actions.
I've had a look at the thing, and also had a look at replica lightsabers. I've also seen the movies so I'm eminently qualified to make a judgement here.
The similarity is that it's a tube that is about the right size to fit in a hand with a light that comes out of the end. So are torches potentially going to come under copyright scrutiny from Mr Lucas?
it doesn't really look like a lightsaber when examined.
(at least those replicas you can buy)
also ... each lightsaber is as unique as the one who built it so what's to copyright?
I think in fact the laser looks cooler than the toy replica lightsabers....
When I first tried to read and comprehend one of his/her/it's postings. I'm pretty sure my eyes began to bleed and my brain started to seep out of my ears.
Long live amanfrommars1
I can live a "Shut the F*ck Up" lifestyle?
I think you may be missing the subtle point that the reg hack is alluding to there, where your anonymity is an illusion.
One of the best things about the internets is the audit trails and loggings.
Of course I could be wrong and it could be petty vindictive behaviour as you suggest.
1984 because while big brother may not be watching you, your activities are probably being logged somewhere.
New keyboard now please
Where's the competition?
Apple will just take anything decent open source, slap a shiny GUI on it and pass it off as their own, the credit only needs to be in the small print after all.
That's not competition, that's parasitic, unless of course there's some feedback resulting in a symbiosis, I doubt it though, not profitable to just give things away.
Another way of doing it? A lot of websites rely on advertising revenue, those slimy browser developers are trying to muscle in on that turf.
It would be nice if the browser was obliged to indicate whether it was going to render the ads on your site or not.
You could then choose whether to supply the content or not.
Alternatively you could intrinsically link the content and the advert, so the content doesn't render coherently without the ad information. A kind of product placement.
You could make a decision on whether to provide content based on the browser string as a quick and dirty.
So I think I know where this is going, there's ad revenue out there to be made, currently people can make money from adverts on their web pages.
So how best to get a part (or ALL) of that revenue?
Step 1 - Strip websites of advertising
Step 2 - Push advertising through Safari
Step 3 - Profit!
Step 4 - Original content no longer able to generate revenue through advertising thus reduction of original content and a slow dwindling consolidation and death of independant websites into just a few content providers, Apple, Google, Microhoo.
Step 5 - death of t'internet
The plan for Safari probably stops at Step 3, Step 4 is a likely to be an inevtiable consequence of the technology. Step 5 is innacurate as you will still have content providers, but they'll be profiting the few and startups will struggle.
"electrocution from electricity pylons"
That sounds like a similar myth to the whole vulture bone eating thing. The starlings round my way don't seem to mind them, they seem to positively thrive on them in fact.
"Couldn't agree more... Just when did the use of good old fashioned common sense end?"
About the time when the CPS decided that it's a good use of taxpayers money to prosecute the guy who wrote the message.
If (when?) he wins the appeal it'll just cost us more money. Way to go CPS.
I'll slap you if you disagree.
Joke alert, and I'd better make it clear that it's perfectly obvious that I won't slap you or anyone who disagrees, just in case some knob decides to prosecute.
It was discovered by chance because he WASN'T a danger and the threat WASN'T real, it was a JOKE published on the INTERNET.
Of course, it was only a threat if the airport didn't get their shit together, clearly they didn't think they could get their shit together so they felt threatened, yes, well, there you have it.
My brother-in-law was one of the saddos.
You raise an inreresting philosophical point. "Better" is an opinion, opinions are subjective. A statement like "Steak tastes better than Lobster" can never be validated.
Anyway my point is - I am better than you (and in fact better than everyone on the planet) and it's completely impossible to prove or disprove that fact.
Never mind eh? Have a beer.
That the workers have actually offed themselves at the facility rather than the the fact they've killed themselves?
As in it's the location of the suicides that's the unusual thing rather than the quantity?
I don't actually know, I'm asking the question, I CBA to do the research and I'm hoping someone knows.
People downvoted you because you pointed out a spelling error. I'm curious as to whether that's a personality thing (I think the upvoting/downvoting thing is turning the Register into a bit of a popularity contest)
Or alternatively it could be because he did spell it with just one U, it just happened to be in the wrong place with another couple of letters in there instead.
And I guess you are stuck with the vulture icon instead of the more correct spelling nazi icon
Yes, a rather stupid conclusion there, that the number is in some way cursed.
I'm not sure dying of cancer is actually all that suspicious, not unless there was some Polonium & Russian spies involved.
Getting gunned down when you're a Mafia boss/Cocaine Smuggler isn't really that suspicious either and I'd say falls under the "Occupational Hazard" category.