You'd want Gigameters?
540 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
You'd want Gigameters?
That only happened in your mind.
What actually happened is that your point was ridiculed and proved to have very little basis in fact.
Of course you can choose to believe what you want to believe. However I'll carry on living in the real world.
It should be.
It won't be though.
That parasite seem to be too deeply ingrained into Italian society.
Are you going to claim "church" as a trademark?
I don't see Christianity in a particularly different light, preying on the vulnerable and the gullible. They might be less demanding and certainly less overt about it but they still require their tythe.
I don't get religion, or cults or that sort of crap that seems to seek to change the way I would behave.
I'm quite capable of interacting in society without having to resort to believing in some invisible force.
In fact I don't need to believe in anything.
Scientology is just another way of gaining power and money from people less self assured than me. Another type of organised crime, it's hardly surprising they have many enemies and feel the need to prepare for an offensive type of defence.
Where is the flying spaghetti monster icon?
Probably end up being worth more than they paid for them anyway.
Much better than religious twoddle.
F*ck me that's evil.
I really hate it when people spell lose as loose.
I don't know why, other spelling mistakes don't wind me up, but that one is just fucking annoying.
Rogers Wireless Rogers woman who Rogers behind husband back?
I bet she wants to keep his name out of the report because it's Roger and it would just get too damned confusing.
How do you get rid of gravity? The only way I know is to get far enough away from the object exerting the gravitational pull, so do it in space then? Easy to do that, get a ticket to the ISS, oh hold on, what's happened to the other part of the experiment, the air pressure. I think we might lose that too.
WTF? I used to read stuff about Paris Hilton and people would say where's the IT angle, now there's a technology story (sort of) and there are where's the Paris Hilton angle comments?
I've read a few posts implying that the main story is the 14 charges of creating child porn, but I don't see that as the case.
I perceive a general mentality when CPS go after someone they go for a spatter gun effect, try them for as many crimes as possible in the hope that something sticks.
The more crimes they're charged with the more likely they are to be found guilty I think is the way it goes.
The other thing this is going to do is justify the law, if the guy makes kiddy porn he's bad, agreed. He also has images of dead squid/octoporn whatever, that's got to be bad (by association) therefore whenever anyone else has these sorts of images chances are they're as bad as this guy.
What do they call it in legalese? Precedent or something?
So lawyers can start quoting case law in "similar" prosecutions.
I don't have any odd porn, but there was a lot flying about when I was at uni, in a sort of goatse way. It seems like it's just another law to slap people with in the event they can't prove you've actually done something wrong, like the occassions when you've not done anything wrong and some dickhead copper (some of them are dickheads) takes a dislike to you.
You're wrong about the Scottish
You've obviously also read about the prosecution of the "going to blow the airport up" tweeter. Best avoid making it look too much of a threat
The one thing for certain is that there's a Con in there somewhere.
"This is not the first review I've read saying the same thing, so there must be something in it."
That's akin to saying X million <insert religious followers here> can't be wrong.
I sold my legs to buy an iPad
My bet is that they are not.
Logic is that it's very rare to find rich & married as a combo.
I don't know where all my money goes, but I'm sure I had more disposable income before I got married, even though I earnt much less.
I suspect the disposable income has been disposed somehow by the other partner
it's just about peace
I watched that Twilight film, I don't really get it.
When I read the original story I assumed he'd (the cleric) been misquoted, or something was out of context.
Has anyone verified that what's being reported are actually the blokes thoughts?
If they are then there's something not right in his head, he's seemingly deranged.
Analysing the words carefully and trying to make sense of the thought process that went into making the original statement leads me to conclude that he's missed the last 800 or so years of scientific developments, not picked up on the fact that one of the most stable geographic regions on the planet (UK) has a vastly more immodest way of dressing than he's used to, and I'm sure the UK is not the only place on the planet where some womed dress tartily and there's a distinct lack of seismic activity.
The test is a fail though, the words actually state it's the adultery that's causing the earthquakes, not the boobage. The assumption he's made is that immodesty increases adultery.
I wonder about that though, I wonder what's more likely to cause adultery, a bit of cleavage on show , or alternatively not actually knowing what your wife looks like until your wedding night and subsequently finding she is not to your taste.
I don't get the way some minds work regardless of how much I try, that much is very apparent.
do you get to be a "senior" manager if you're "young" and stupid?
The comment she makes is true though, she doesn't know what fascist soldiers look like, generally they're indistinguishable from democratic ones.
iTunes is flamebait
It was probably cheaper/easier to get away with the testing on sheep, Animal rights activists probably don't care so much about them (because they are so tasty) they'd probably have to get through a lot of legistlation and protestation if they wanted to use something closer the requirements.
It's probably a lot more dangerous to meth up a bunch of primates too.
I wouldn't really want to be trying to taser some tweaked out chimp.
From a scientific viewpoint I have no problem with testing on animals, what would you suggest?
Testing on humans? I suspect that there might be some legality issues there, even if there wasn't the expense could be horrendous when you have to pay out after the tests prove that there is a danger to using meth and being tasered.
You'd have a bunch of effectively executed humans and I expect theire families would quickly learn it pays to be litigious.
the letter f?
Facebook own 'f' like Apple own 'i'?
uck ng d ots
Not that big of a deal
What about a picture of a person having sex with another person made up to look like a corpse with a caption that says "you're a wanker you are"
How could you actually tell if the person made up like a corpse were alive or dead?
To be honest I'm expecting it'll most likely catch a bunch of people with horse fucking clips on their computers, probably ones they long forgot about after getting goatsed with them and forgetting to delete them.
I'm hoping there will be a candidate or 2 to choose from this time, but where I was last time there was an election it was just the usual suspects, and they're just mostly crap.
Votes are never wasted by me, I'll always vote, even if it's for none of the above. Voting is not a waste of time, the candidates we get stuck with usually are though.
I am down to Lib Dem or a spoilt ballot.
None of the thieving lying bastards.
If it's not on google it doesn't exist?
I didn't realise their plans were that far advanced yet.
That's absolute genius, I love it when companies try to disguise incompetence with more incompetence.
You'd almost think they were lying if it weren't potentially libelous.
FFS the word is lose dammit!
"an unfavourable reputation" - which is a not very polite way of referring to the Yakuza.
Not very polite?
I thought it was incredibly polite based on my understanding of the Yakuza.
If you were going for sarcasm it doesn't really come off.
In 2000AD (the comic) a storyline that's been used a few times is that in the fictional world of Judge Dredd, sex has become an event at the olympics. There are drawings of fictional characters having sex. Obviously only certain parts are shown, the ones that are probably legal to show, so basically just the boobs, but they portray characters having sex, in front of a crowd and TV cameras broadcasting to millions.
My bet is that at least one of those small circles depicting the crowd is under 16.
This really does seem to depend on imagination as to whether something is legal or not.
People have different imaginations and I would have thought that it depends on the Psyche of the person judging whether the image is legal or not.
The person judging could be some sick twisted person (or in other words a catholic priest) who deems the material to be highly offensive purely because of their own imagination.
Hmmmm, this is not even committing a crime in your own head, it's committing a crime in someone else's head.
You left a genuine email address when you registered with the review site?
Do you think it's an internal thing or perhaps (and here's a good business idea for the unscrupulous) it could be a third party set-up where there is financial remuneration for a quantity of positive reviews.
Of course if you wanted to deliver a good service then you might want to consider maybe not ALWAYS giving a 5 star rating, throw in a few 4 stars, maybe even a 3. Even better, maybe consider actually writing something that could have been written by a genuine individual. Rather than things like "GRATEST STORE EVER!" when referring to a purveyor of flowers. I mean let's be honest, it's a flower shop, it's not going to be the greatest store ever, it's just going to sell you flowers, it's not likely to source you a new kitchen, the needle for the 20 year old record player you've been searching for for the last 15 years as well as the latest game for wii.
Something that would cost £2bn to repair after ramming it up to full capacity could only cost £1bn to shore up so that if you ram it up to full capacity then it doesn't break?
A Cost/benefits analysis has probably decided that it makes better financial sense to not take the risk.
I can't multitask at all, unless you count breathing as one of those tasks.
I can multi-thread, but I only have the one processor.
I never answer the phone when driving, and I don't fly jets, probably a good job really.
I got pissed the night before an exam and slept through my alarm, missing the entire exam.
I'm fairly sure that influenced the mark I was given.
If this were not a true story I'd be using the joke alert icon, as it is I'll have to go with Paris (as so many have)
If I use bird or chick, maybe bint or milf, they're probably more natural (depending on the subject matter) but of course they could be construed as derogatory, being conversational on a message board is inviting trouble.
Are people REALLY that thick that they go onto a talkshow and don't know what they'll be getting in return?
You have a very narrow view of software and hardware.
People are still using proprietary hardware running DOS and other OS's which don't have GUI's.
Hardware can be made to last a lot longer than you think, your world view seems to be very small, don't try to fit everything into it.
That is why you are using the geek icon incorrectly. I do not think you know what a legacy system is.
You dont HAVE to upgrade your OS.
You don't HAVE to change your hardware.
You don't HAVE to connect to the internet.
Not all software becomes obsolete because you say so or because a period of time elapses.
Now get back to pre-ordering you iPad.
Outdated software still does what it did when you bought it. If it had a purpose when it was purchased then it can continue to fill that purpose.
It's software, not hardware, it doesn't change it's behaviour over time, it doesn't break down, it has no moving parts.
You use the geek icon unwisely.
It's not flawed, it is semantics. It plays a big part in law. It's not even my argument, I just looked up the definition.
I think that might be the point of the article, specifically that Register.com could get the law suit dismissed on a legal technicality of a dubious nature.
Hence they may win the legal argument but lose the trust of their customers.
Law sucks really, it's not 0's and 1's
And like OJ Simpson they'll be better off for having won the court case rather than losing the court case AND the public relations battle.