Search
Search results: 7,761 found, showing up to 50
Religion is a threat to society, full stop.DonFck wrote:
No, Christianity is posed as a threat to Middle Eastern society.lowing wrote:
Feel free to hate them all you want. As it is, however, Christianity is not a threat to western society.DonFck wrote:
As is Christianity.
I thought Danny Mac was a DJ...
Awesome skills though.
Awesome skills though.
And with HDMI, DVI and D-Sub. Very nice!sexecuti0ner wrote:
You can get 1080p on 21.5"? Nice, I thought it would have to be a larger screen.Miggle wrote:
Question 4 Miggle: can you utilise (and easily select between) the 3 inputs at the same time?
18,9284,67600,4356,16402,576,16386,5380,16402,34880,32784,2306,8196,66632,2,65800
yeah, but you lack sense.max wrote:
I ran tri-SLI in a P182 for a couple months
73992,2120,66596,2080,73986,2112,9232,2048,74000,576,66052,8720,2048,8464,66568,2080
The world is chock full of contradictions.Macbeth wrote:
I thought about this today. Now they say killing small animals is a sign of mental illness. So it would be considered a sign that I am ill if I bought home a bunch of baby mice and flushed them down a toilet right? But what if I go out hunting and decide to ambush and blow the head off of a deer with a hunting rifle and not actually eat the meat?
I mean what the difference between killing those baby mice and blowing a deer head off and not eating it? It's still a life right? So my question is:
Should hunting and not using the animal as food be considered a sign of mental illness since killing small animals in your home is a sign of illness?
And your point is?Defiance wrote:
I've already taken that out because I'm not using it, but the point I was trying to make is that I'll probably never run TriSLIs because I 1) could not afford it as I'm a teenager with a part time job and 2) couldn't justify the cost even if I did have the money. There are more important things to buy and more cost effective cards.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You'll have to lose the upper HDD cage if you want to TriSli GTX280's.Defiance wrote:
Functionally they look fine but the only major difference is the aesthetics, which seem to kill the clean look of the '2s. It's going down the scifi/grunge path. Sticking with the P182, I don't foresee having problems running TriSLI.
Only joking - I wish I had the money, and lacked the sense, for TriSLI too.
That's just an Antec Nine Hundred.Nic wrote:
much rather get the corsair case when it is released or a Azza... just saw them at www.directcanada.com
http://www.directcanada.com/products/?s … TECHNOLOGY
You'll have to lose the upper HDD cage if you want to TriSli GTX280's.Defiance wrote:
Functionally they look fine but the only major difference is the aesthetics, which seem to kill the clean look of the '2s. It's going down the scifi/grunge path. Sticking with the P182, I don't foresee having problems running TriSLI.
There's another new one - the P183 - too:
has the same door, but not as big as the P192 (OP), very similar to the P182 inside, looks like they've just moved the bottom-section middle-fan to where it should have been in the first place!
has the same door, but not as big as the P192 (OP), very similar to the P182 inside, looks like they've just moved the bottom-section middle-fan to where it should have been in the first place!
Or the new Antec P193...Nic wrote:
yeah... if your looking in that price range, get a antec 300....
http://www.antec.com/Believe_it/product.php?id=MTgyNQ==
looks like it solves the P182's not quite big enough for tri-sli GTX280's issue...
by about 6 or 8 inches...
not sure I like the ugly side-fan cover...
looks like it solves the P182's not quite big enough for tri-sli GTX280's issue...
by about 6 or 8 inches...
not sure I like the ugly side-fan cover...
I would....Aries_37 wrote:
....run a mile!
Bertster7 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Hang on, I'll have a look for one....
...1st result when you Google "kettling":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … t-kettlingthe guardian wrote:
Article 5 of the Human Rights Act sets out the right not to be deprived of liberty except in five well-defined exceptions and is an absolute right. The exceptions concern detention to effect a lawful arrest or compliance with a court order, detention of a child who is unsupervised or of a person in breach of immigration rules, or "the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants".Has been ruled to be lawful. As I said.Containment tactics were first used over a long period of time on 1 May 2001 when an anti-capitalist protest at Oxford Circus was corralled by the police for seven hours in bad weather and with no access to toilet facilities. Lois Austin, a demonstrator, and Geoffrey Saxby, a passerby caught up in the demo, challenged their false imprisonment in the courts and on 28 January this year, after Saxby dropped out of the action, the House of Lords ruled that the police had behaved lawfully and Austin had no right to compensation.
I agree entirely that it shouldn't be lawful and I vehemently disagree with the ruling.
The Austin and Saxby case foundered because of very prejudicial findings by the judge at the first instance about what actually happened at the 2001 May Day protests.
I hate you all.
The Hulk. He-Man. Wolverine. John Constantine. Lucifer.
Favourite cracker?
hmm...
er...
no...
well...
nah...
let's see...
oh, I know...
those sausage, egg, 2 fried slices and beans 'crackers'.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
crackers are for girls
hmm...
er...
no...
well...
nah...
let's see...
oh, I know...
those sausage, egg, 2 fried slices and beans 'crackers'.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
crackers are for girls
What's this rubbish about page 100?
I see you're starting to get the hang of it now, bevo...Bevo wrote:
Quite possibly.ghettoperson wrote:
Argh. The gf just wrote ciao as 'chow' on MSN. I have to break up with her, don't I?
"Look, you're really nice as a sex object and all, but all this talking stuff is turning me off. If you ever speak to me again, I'll have to break up with you. But don't worry, as long as you keep nice and quiet this will work out."
Bertster7 wrote:
Hang on, I'll have a look for one....Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Linky?Bertster7 wrote:
They currently do actually (under review now).
Has been challenged in court and upheld as a legal tactic.
...1st result when you Google "kettling":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … t-kettling
the guardian wrote:
Article 5 of the Human Rights Act sets out the right not to be deprived of liberty except in five well-defined exceptions and is an absolute right. The exceptions concern detention to effect a lawful arrest or compliance with a court order, detention of a child who is unsupervised or of a person in breach of immigration rules, or "the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants".
lowing wrote:
actually after read what you wrote, in response, I am kinda wondering if YOU know what the hell it means.Man With No Name wrote:
lol at lowing not knowing what "apartheid" is
wonder if hes looking up wiki this moment
Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
actually after read what you wrote, in response, I am kinda wondering if YOU know what the hell it means.Man With No Name wrote:
lol at lowing not knowing what "apartheid" is
wonder if hes looking up wiki this momentHe is totally and completely correct lowing.Man With No Name wrote:
apartheid deals with internal policies.
how can an outside arab or islamic nation have an "apartheid policy" with a country they dont control. lol.
not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are we?
You are, yet again, looking stupid by not knowing what words mean....
Linky?Bertster7 wrote:
They currently do actually (under review now).Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Indeed.Braddock wrote:
You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
And they definitely do not have the power to illegally detain without arrest (i.e. 'kettling').
Has been challenged in court and upheld as a legal tactic.
Yes, it's censorship.
Yes, it's racism.
Yes, this whole fucking world needs to grow up.
Yes, it's racism.
Yes, this whole fucking world needs to grow up.
Indeed.Braddock wrote:
You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
And they definitely do not have the power to illegally detain without arrest (i.e. 'kettling').
Yes, I understand that. It's the highlighted part where it's circular. Again, you're pre-loading your arguments with the assumption that groups working against each other are a necessity.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Something that every group does does not unite us - it is just a necessity. They are not always the same thing.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
And that's a circular argument - "it doesn't force us into groups that work against each other because it unites us".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lawl, maybe it came out that way, it was more of a paradox in my head.
Because it applies to everyone, it does not draw the lines that are so necessary for groups to form in order to work against each other, but instead are worked out by each group in their own way within the lines.
I know.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That is the whole point of the thread. Is that assumption true or not?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I think you're pre-loading your arguments with the assumption that groups working against each other are a necessity for a functioning society.
My point is, that you won't find the answer by first asserting that the assumption is true!
This is one of those questions where smoking a few spliffs worth of good quality grass can really help to dissolve those in-built assumptions to allow one to see through the veil of ones own belief system.
But then, of course, remembering what the hell it was you were thinking about in the first place, becomes a little more difficult...
And that's a circular argument - "it doesn't force us into groups that work against each other because it unites us".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lawl, maybe it came out that way, it was more of a paradox in my head.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That's a non sequitur.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
because it is universal it is internal not external.
Because it applies to everyone, it does not draw the lines that are so necessary for groups to form in order to work against each other, but instead are worked out by each group in their own way within the lines.
I think you're pre-loading your arguments with the assumption that groups working against each other are a necessity for a functioning society.
That's a non sequitur.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
because it is universal it is internal not external.
and different instrumentsKmarion wrote:
wish we had tempo control
I feel a Lennon YouTube video coming on...
Ban alarm:
248,31912,21584,10240,240,30760,5360,30720,248,31760,2080,4160,8440,31744,184,23552
248,31912,21584,10240,240,30760,5360,30720,248,31760,2080,4160,8440,31744,184,23552
28,1952,188,1792,134,1792,56,772,1156,768,0,1920,128,1792,128,1792Miggle wrote:
16320,128,256,16320,0,16320,8256,8256,16320,0,0,0,16320,8192,8192,16320Scorpion0x17 wrote:
inb4 0,240,128,6144,8416,4256,8416,6144,240,14464,8192,14336,0,15360,10240,0
inb4 0,240,128,6144,8416,4256,8416,6144,240,14464,8192,14336,0,15360,10240,0
8160,12336,24600,49356,104742,67938,67874,67778,67778,67874,67938,99622,50380,25624,12336,8160Mutantbear wrote:
8160,12336,25624,50380,105766,81250,77282,76994,76994,77090,81250,105958,49356,24600,12336,8160
()
2,32928,0,4128,0,36992,0,16416,1024,8196,0,16912,0,32898,0,1040Flaming_Maniac wrote:
0,32928,0,32,0,32896,0,16416,1024,8192,0,16912,0,32898,0,1040
I am no musician, but I think that every other vertical space makes a harmonious chord. Just fyi.
67586,2304,67586,256,67840,8,67840,2048,67600,65536,65808,2336,65568,2372,65604,65858Kmarion wrote:
67586,2048,67586,0,67584,8,67584,2048,67600,65536,65552,2080,65568,2112,65600,65600NeXuS wrote:
67584,2048,67584,0,67584,0,67584,2048,67584,65536,65536,2048,65536,2048,65536,65536
Wooo!
I added to his starting point...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh snap put them both on the same matrix.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
67586,2064,67588,4,67616,8,67588,2080,67588,65540,65600,2064,65544,2080,65540,65540NeXuS wrote:
67584,2048,67584,0,67584,0,67584,2048,67584,65536,65536,2048,65536,2048,65536,65536
Wooo!
If that wasn't what Scorpion had intended already.
67586,2064,67588,4,67616,8,67588,2080,67588,65540,65600,2064,65544,2080,65540,65540NeXuS wrote:
67584,2048,67584,0,67584,0,67584,2048,67584,65536,65536,2048,65536,2048,65536,65536
Wooo!
nice
Well, I'm talking about the subject of the thread - Ian Tomlinson.Vilham wrote:
I would say being 10 ft from a major protest makes it pretty hard to determine being a bystander. Infact he can bring forth no evidence that he was just a bystander. For all the legal system knows he was on his way to join the protest at that very moment. Doesn't mean he would be charged with anything, but he still could have been arrested.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I'm no expert, but, imho, being a bystander, on his way home from work, is not "reasonable suspicion" of anything other than "being a bystander, on his way home from work".Sorcerer0513 wrote:
Sorry, can i get clarification on this part:
Does this also apply to persons not taking part in demo/procession? Because subsections 4, 5 and 6 apply to persons taking part in demo/procession, is it assumed anyone on site is involved in said demo procession?
/me is a law noob.
And, from what I can tell from the evidence I've seen, none of what you state applies to that specific case.
I'm no expert, but, imho, being a bystander, on his way home from work, is not "reasonable suspicion" of anything other than "being a bystander, on his way home from work".Sorcerer0513 wrote:
Sorry, can i get clarification on this part:Does this also apply to persons not taking part in demo/procession? Because subsections 4, 5 and 6 apply to persons taking part in demo/procession, is it assumed anyone on site is involved in said demo procession?Public Order Act wrote:
(7) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under subsection (4), (5) or (6).
/me is a law noob.
Uh oh.Bevo wrote:
Of course she mentions some other guy that likes(? dunno) her
Way to break someones heart Bevo.
Whilst this is correct, what they don't have the power to do is to stop you going about your lawful business.Vilham wrote:
Read section 12 of the public order act. Yes they do.Bertster7 wrote:
There is no such charge.Vilham wrote:
Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
Police have no explicit right to give orders to members of the public.
And I find it hilarious that you think they don't even without reading the act. If you were indeed correct there would be hundreds of legal cases against the police every day as the police regularly arrest people disobeying police orders after being warned. There are dozens of those police shows on TV that have members of the police force doing exactly that. I would have thought if they weren't allowed to someone might have picked up on it by now...
thats not to say he can be prosecuted but he can be arrested.
And, in this case, that is exactly what they were doing.
I <3 teh interwebz.
It lets me watch the full BBC1 F1 coverage 7hrs after it's finished.
It lets me watch the full BBC1 F1 coverage 7hrs after it's finished.
OMG you're sooo cool.
I want to have your babies.
/sarcasm
I want to have your babies.
/sarcasm
Hmmm... let me think...
Attack a country that's bigger and stronger than we are?
Yeah, that sounds like a plan...
Attack a country that's bigger and stronger than we are?
Yeah, that sounds like a plan...
1. Buy gun.
2. Take gun to prom.
3. Kill everyone in prom.
4. Kill self.
5. Profit.
2. Take gun to prom.
3. Kill everyone in prom.
4. Kill self.
5. Profit.