Hmm just wondering
Has there EVER been a proven case of a mobile phone causing danger on a flight? Or was it in fact some assumption made by airlines because people didn't understand the technology?
594 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Aug 2007
I'm not sure if I'm glad to own an original PS3 or not. I paid more for it, but then it has the backwards compatibility and a full set of USB ports.
I've seen the 40GB ones on sale here already, or at least for preorder, and they were about £249 I think. I think this must be part of Sony's big push to capture some of the Xmas market.
So once again reading between the lines, Apple have "grown" less than the market in general, so you can summise that they actually lost market share? Serves them right for those damned adverts with Mitchell and Webb........well, and being massively overpriced for a not particularly great end product.
When are they going to introduce "Shit Driver Cameras"? Far more accidents are caused by people who drive inappropriately (either right up someone's ass, or pull out without looking, or are simply clueless) than speed alone. Yes, speed is a factor in some accidents, but those who claim it's the root of all evil are sadly deluded. There should be much tougher tests for drivers, not just banned ones but EVERYONE on the road. Half of the drivers on the road should have their licences revoked from what I see EVERY DAY on my travels.
As for cyclists who mount pavements (I almost got run over by one on the pavement the other day), run red lights, and other anti-social riding activities, they should be lined up against a wall and shot. I have NO sympathy for anyone who fails to realise that they are in an extremely vulnerable situation. Where I live, there are cycle paths all over the place, yet cyclists (particularly the ones donned all in lycra) prefer to kill themselves on the roads.
The answer is to have MORE traffic police, and for them to put a higher priority on urban areas, not only pulling speeders but also concentrating on other poor drivers. I have even been in cars being driven by people who drove like I mentioned, and when asked they didn't even realise they were doing anything wrong.
So I say every driver in the UK should have to take an intermittent "reminder" test in order to keep their licence, and there should be a licence for cyclists as well. I know any cyclist will flame me for this, but any idiot can ride a bike without any clue of road laws, and there is currently no way to punish dangerous cyclists.
Oh and here's a fact....more pedestrians are killed or injured on the pavement by cyclists than by cars.
It used to be easy to spot an internet retard, you just looked for the @aol.* on their email address (I know of two sites which simply banned AOL users based on the proportion of stupid questions they used to get). It looks like it will be much harder in the future.
And I'm sorry, they were never a "good ISP", simply provided "internet for dummies".
A home pirate is one thing, but if these people are stupid enough to load illegal copies of software onto customers PC's then they deserve everything they get. Not that I condone piracy even on a single person basis, but these people were actually making money from illegal software.
Well the whole story is typical trash-tabloid-toss isn't it? They love to show any sort of story that provokes the nations "anti-foreigner" response and there are plenty of people stupid enough to buy into it.
In fact I would go as far as to say that The Sun may well be responsible for a large proportion of the racism and xenophobia that exists in todays UK society. They persistently print stories which either completely focus on, or are biased towards, how "undertrodden" the typical British person in. It would not surprise me at all if I were to find out that several members of The Sun staff were National Front members or something similar.
This particular tabloid prints stories which, intentional or not, breed hatred, fear and in turn, racism and dislike of anyone not typically British. If it were my choice, it'd be banned.
I have no sympathy simply because they were too stupid to realise that it was a waste of money in the first place. People buy a phone which they KNOW is tied to a particular network and that they will HAVE to hack to make it work elsewhere and then are somehow surprised when the hacks break their I-Bricks?
Despite the fact that the I-Phone is overrated and overpriced (as with most Apple products) they still bought it, then hacked it. Why not just get a decent phone that doesn't need to be hacked to use on a different network? (Nokia N95 for example has almost all the same abilities as an I-Brick without the Apple ties)
It's just like the Italians to get mardy and cry when they start losing. Just look at their football team when they're losing a match, they look like a bunch of playschool kisd who have just been told that they aren't getting their milk. If I were McLaren, I would look for any opportunity to implicate Ferrari now
If I want to experience the world through a different set of eyes or a different perspective then I'll just drink until I'm pissed enough to start gargling the national anthem. Oh wait....I drink like that anyway.
This is the most pointless invention since the U.S. intelligence test.
Thanks, but it's not going to help the people who are stupid enough to give away their login details to others, is it?
My opinion?
If people are stupid enough to give away their details, they deserve everything they get. If one WoW nerd is forced to get a real life after all his gear gets stolen and his account trashed, then it's been a worthwhile exercise.
To Chad H.
In response to your statement "For some stupid reason, ringtones cost more than songs, and the market has shown its stupidly willing to pay." I believe that the statement answered the "stupid reason".
Ringtones cost so much more because people ARE stupid enough to pay for them.
I personally hate other people's ringtones, although they can cause amusement at times, especially when someone's phone rings and the tune is wholly inappropriate for the time. I think the funniest was probably someone's phone ringing out with South Park's "Uncle F***er" song while standing in the queue at Tesco's supermarket.
"Greg", are you in your very early twenties perhaps? I just wonder. I learnt both imperial and metric measures at school so I couldn't really care less about the decision. I do find it easier to work in metric with everything aside from height and weight oddly enough.
I'm surprised people are still moaning about it, although I still prefer the phrase, "You don't get many of them to the pound" rather than "You don't get many of those to the 0.454 Kilograms".
For a start, the whole article was written with the attitude, "well if I don't want it, nobody does", which is a terrible way to look at it when plainly there appears to be a market for these "pink" things. Aside from that, the article was written with a sexist feminist overtone and while it might be supposed to be satirical, it doesn't come across like that. It comes across as an angry woman stamping her foot because the products she "thinks" are aimed at her don't match her personal taste.
Style plays a large part in a lot of manufacturers products. They know that quite a proportion of people will show a preference to products which they find aesthetically pleasing, male or female. The "pink" products (I use this to describe the general collection of products the writer finds "wrong") are there to satisfy a specific portion of buyers, i.e. those with no taste (in my opinion). There are many very nicely designed and beautiful products and the writer is completely wrong in the assumption that this isn't ALREADY partly to do with the female portion of the market.
Basically the assumption of the writer is that women haven't been thought of at all when designing the mass of stylish products, and these are in fact aimed at men. The truth is that with the exception of particular sex-specific products, they were designed with the mass market in mind, irrespective of gender.
I hate sexists.
Such terrible abusers of third-party information handling. It's basically where they make their money from, although the agreements will be nicely hidden away somewhere when you use their site (or very carefully worded). I would advise people NEVER to apply for anything from "broker" sites like this but go direct to the company supplying the loan/insurance/whatever.
I kind of like the idea of an "IQ" test for computer users, but not a typical one, more of a common sense test (as some otherwise intelligent people can have no common sense around computers). Questions such as:
1) A mail arrives from Prince Umbongo claiming to be able to make you rich for a small down-payment. Do you....
a) Get excited and reply back, willing to part with cold hard cash like a pillock?
b) Delete the mail?
c) Figure out a way to get some money out of the blatant scammer and turn the tables (see 419eater.com)?
2) A mail arrives appearing to be from your bank, asking you to fill out your details on a webpage for "security reasons". Do you.....
a) Happily fill out the form, blissfully unaware that you've just given your bank details to a dodgy bloke in Korea?
b) Ring your bank and ask them if the mail is real?
c) Delete the mail while making random rude signs at your screen?
Now you see, if there was a test like this then the spammers could just target those stupid enough to fall for their ploys, and leave the rest of us alone.
What do you think?
So given that speedometers are notoriously inaccurate at higher speeds, he was probably doing nowhere near 140mph. Even sports cars can show as much as 10-15mph inaccuracies at 100mph+ let alone some battered Escort with rear drum brakes.
Anyway, they won't have to prove his real speed, they'll just do him for dangerous driving and probably a couple of other counts. Enough to take his licence anyway.
Whatever the reasoning behind it, there is little difference between one case and another (this or RIAA demanding user details). There's just a vast difference in the way they are viewed, seen that the U.S. control the internet (or would like to think they do).
Yahoo caved to a foreign governments demands for their logs, despite NOT being covered by Chinese law. If the Chinese wanted the logs, Yahoo should have made them apply for them through a U.S. court, thus covering their own back. It was a poor decision on their part. Mind you, if the U.S. do find them guilty on human rights charges then it would be a total hypocrisy when you look at other cases.
What you seem to forget is that Torrentspy are not a U.S. company, have no ties in the U.S and are not covered by U.S. law. It's very similar to something I remember reading (in the Reg I think) about the U.S. deciding that they were going to police space (around the Earth). In the same way they've also decided that they will police the internet.
I'm quite glad that Torrentspy cut off the U.S. and I hope that other sites and servers (whatever the content) end up doing the same. There's a good reason why Americans are considered as rude and interfering by practically every other population on the planet.
Oh and for the record, I don't download from P2P. I tried it before, but I didn't inhale.
I just wanted to say that Michaels comment was probably the most sensible thing I have read in a while. Why are people so afraid to talk to their kids about the truth behind sex and all the other things that go with it? As soon as you try to hide it, kids just get more curious and no-one can really deny that.
The truth is that if kids were given the cold hard facts by parents and teachers more openly that they would be better prepared. Lets face it, the facts behind sex are hardly......sexy are they?
It was always something openly discussed in my house when I was growing up and as such I never felt the need to rush into anything. Although granted I am a dirty little degenerate now ;)
....of anything else, no-one can assume whether he was in the right or wrong with the bus accident. What I will say (despite the defensive comments from bikers) is that I've seen just as many accidents involving bikers which were their own fault as ones that weren't. You can regularly see bikers overtaking dangerously, and anyone who denies this is blind to the truth.
Yes it MAY be a minority of bikers who do this, just like it is the minority of car drivers who daydream and use phones while driving etc.....The fact is that it only takes one of either kind to cause an accident. Believe me I'm not defending car drivers (I swear at bad drivers all the time) or attacking bikers, merely attacking the people who blindly defend their own "group" against evidence to the contrary.
As for this bloke, at least he left his artificial hand attached and not the other one....
This story got me thinking that perhaps I (or someone else) should start a public service website in order to cleanse the gene pool. It would work by posing as a sensible tech site but with suggestions for fixing products which are stupid and potentially dangerous.
Anyone with half a brain would see it as a joke and laugh, and anyone too stupid to realise it was a joke would soon be out of the way.
So is anyone up for helping me start it? :)