Ok, I'll bite.
Where's the MILF angle?
61 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Jun 2007
Harvey noted that the couple "would most likely (face charges that?) relate to use of a computer because a theft charge would not be applicable"
I didn't realise that using a computer was illegal over here. I'd better go into hiding, I'm due a life lag.
On a related matter re the legality of it all.
The difference between 10,000 and 10,000,000 is just a bunch of zeros. And zero is nothing.
How can they be charged for stealing nothing?
that you missed.
1. Draper, a self-confessed psychotherapist thought it would be "absolutely brilliant" to smear the wife of an MP for appearing "emotionally fragile".
2. If "it is right that Mr McBride and Mr Draper took the decision not to publish this material" and that these were "things Mr McBride thought should go in the bin", it is probable that there was an email stating this exchanged between the two. Funny how this hasn't yet come to light.
Apart from that, a good summary of the weekends hi jinks. Especially your quote "After all, if the government has nothing to hide..."
The Aussie Censorship minister makes an empty threat regarding the source of the leak.
Lim replies with exactly the same empty threat, in full knowledge that his sources are protected in Sweden. "Back at you".
As the first poster said, "Wikileaks 1 - Censorship 0", the extra point going to Wikileaks for style alone.
According to my trusty Oxford Irish Minidictionary Cuil (without the accent over the u) means either a fly (such as a blue bottle, cuil ghorm or greenfly, cuil ghlas) or an angry appearance (cuil a bheith ort, to be in angry mood).
With the accent it means corner or nook. Hence bheith caite i gcuil choicise, to be cast aside.
Not sure which is more appropriate.
The possessive of "it" does not have an apostrophe. If it did, its apostrophe would be before the s, as it's a singular pronoun.
Sorry about that but it made it hard to read.
However I agree with the sentiment. First, let's kill all the lawyers.
The common theme with these graphs is that they demonstrate what a bell curve looks like.
Around 30% (15% at either end) are either in full panic mode or couldn't give a stuff. The remaining 70% think that sooner or later things might get a bit tough, or they might not.
The only exception seems to be in responses from those who work for American companies in the financial sector who employ more than 5,000 employees, where they tend to skew towards the "We're all going to die!" end of the scale.
Who'd a thunk it.
Water "has the odd property of being less dense in its solid form"?? Surely not. Having listened to the greenies we all know that when the North Pole melts it will raise the sea levels to the point that the Maldives will be under water. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
In much the same way that when the ice melts in their G&Ts, the glass overflows all over the bar.
Makes me wonder why Archimedes ever got out of the bath in the first place.
While I can see your point about drop off with each extra click, it may be worth checking the numbers again and seeing if they still stack up now that comments are enabled. It may be that the comment feature is motivating more people to read all the way through (if they realise it is a multi-page).
Of course that may not be the case, but I'm sure it'll be worth the exercise even if to check your own views on multi-page stories.
As for the Stalinisation of keeping comments till the last page, if you went along with the AC above my comments and also put the page links at the top, that would seem a fair compromise, Comrade.
And maybe in the grey box, on the grey bar you could use red numbers, just to show that creeping capitalism hasn't gotten out of hand at Vulture Central?
and maybe also not put the comments link on every page, just on the last one? Two reasons:
1. It should cut down on the number of RTFA comments.
2. I might not miss the fact that so many of the articles are multi-paged, click to read the comments, get 1/2 way through them before I realise *I* haven't RTFA, go back to to where the train of thought got derailed and try to pick up the thread again, go "Oh sod it!" and go look at something else.
Seems a waste to have the good articles that I've been reading here since last century if 1/2 your readers miss most of them.
"The only way to get the Edinburgh+Glasgow scale of energy savings and carbon benefits hinted at by the Cabinet Office would be to reduce food demand in the UK by 20 per cent" - Surely not?
How about a small nuke in the centre of each of these cities, and perhaps one or two others,
Though this would, of course, have a side benefit of reducing demand for food as well.
1930s The Yellow Peril
1940s-1970s The Red Menace
1970s New Ice Age
1980s Nuclear Winter
1990s Y2K (ok, there might have been some point to that, but a lot of exaggeration too)
2000's Bird Flu, SARS, Terrorism, Global Climate Change (because we can't agree if it's going to warm up or cool down)
Roll on 2010 so I can find out what the next decade's worry-warts are going to have us all killed in our beds by.
What the devil is Figure 7 supposed to show?
"Do you have initiatives in place to reduce power consumption in relation to IT?"
yes/No, but we're looking into it/No, not on the agenda, I can understand, but what the deuce are the three bands across the graph (Regulatory Pressure i.e. legistlation/Cost Savings/Public Relations) got to do with anything?
And is there a text version available instead of a pdf? I'd prefer to search it for the words "proactive" and "moving forward" before I decide whether to waste my time on the rest of it.
I still remember being in the restaurant trade about 15 years ago. Sent the new kitchen-hand down to the dry-stores looking for clear food colouring.
20 minutes, no sign of him. So, I send a waitress out to help him.
20 minutes later, still no sign of either of them. The new duty manager goes to assist.
10 minutes later the boss comes in fuming wondering where everyone was and, on being told, is cluey enough to see the piss-take.
Got a hell of a yelling at, though he had a hard time keeping a straight face while he was doing it.
I'm sure even heystoopid would agree that they don't shag sheep in India either. Mind you he doesn't object to giving the Kiwis a serve every now and then.
I would agree though that slagging off your own kind isn't as much fun as slagging off others.
"No one can be as calculatedly rude as the British, which amazes Americans, who do not understand studied insult and can only offer abuse as a substitute." Paul Gallico
I see his two sons, Uday and Qusay, are there too. Didn't see Hitler, A. or Stalin, J. there though, so I supposed they're catching up.
Mind you, as this bloke can't have a web site that advertises Cuba, I'd have thought a cursory mention of CASTRO, Fidel would have been in order.
I see our old friend Ozzie is on the list:
BIN LADEN, Osama (a.k.a. BIN LADEN, Usama; a.k.a. BIN LADIN, Osama;
a.k.a. BIN LADIN, Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad; a.k.a. BIN LADIN,
Usama; a.k.a. BIN LADIN, Usama bin Muhammad bin Awad); DOB 30 Jul
57; alt. DOB 1958; POB Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; alt. POB Yemen
(individual) [SDT] [SDGT]
Maybe if they took him off the blocked persons list he might decide to go there on holiday. They could pick him up at the airport. Just seems a bit silly tipping him off that they're looking for him like that.
The long flowing golden one. Thanks.
Of course he did more than just Everest. He was also the 3rd man to reach the South Pole overland.
"It was not originally intended that Hillary would travel as far as the South Pole, but when he had completed laying supply depots he saw the opportunity to beat the British and continued south, reaching the Pole – where the US Amundsen-Scott Station had recently been established by air – on January 3, 1958. Hillary's party was just the third (preceded by Amundsen in 1911 and Scott in 1912) to reach the Pole overland. Hillary's arrival also marked the first time that land vehicles had ever reached the Pole."
I seem to remember hearing a quote by Fuchs, the leader of the British team that Hillary was supposed to be supporting. "Great, now we've got three expeditions. The Americans, the British and Ed Hillary's private bloody expedition."
@ Mike Sanders. It's actually the $5 note that Ed is on. The most common bank note in NZ and there are a LOT of them with his autograph on them. I doubt he ever refused to sign one if someone asked. The $50 has Sir Apirana Ngata. (Lord Ernest Rutherford on the $100, Kate Sheppard on the $10, Phil the Greek's missus on the $20).
3.4 What are the challenges in moving forward with an effective environmental strategy in IT? (please tick all that apply)
This is organised by the sort of people who use the words "moving forward" as if they mean something. Well, I say paradigm, synergy and pro-active to the lot of them.
Perhaps they mean "Why is being a greeny tosser so hard when working with computers?"
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling..."