Why take that chance again? She has already shown total disregard for his feelings once. It's pretty obvious how she feels.White-Fusion wrote:
That's not true at all, she might be like that, she might not. Do what Lt.Victim says above and forgive her, if it happens again then dump her and don't look back.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
they suddenly had sex... lol... She needs to be kicked to the curb... for your sanity...
It Will happen again... If not with you... with her next guy and then guy after that...
Search
Search results: 351 found, showing up to 50
There fixed.chittydog wrote:
Any girl who cheats on you AT ALL is not worth keeping. Sex doesn't "accidentally" happen. You have to seriously reevaluate your relationship. Dump her and keep your self-respect.
Move on...once a cheater always a cheater. If you show her she can get away with it, what's to stop her in the future. Obviously she doesn't love you, or it would of never happened period. That's your fantasy? To be cheated on? That's not love. No where near it.
That's my point they don't think before they react, because they all ready know are justice system is a joke. Their life in prison is more than likely to be better then outside of prison. Nothings appealing about it, but they know one thing for sure they will not be punished for their crime for a long time.PureFodder wrote:
Based on what exactly? What's so appealing about sitting on death row for 20-30 years before being executed? Do you honestly believe for one second that the amount of time people spend on death row before they are killed has ever entered the mind of a single criminal ever when deciding whether or not to kill someone?psychotoxic187 wrote:
Your logic is so flawed it's pathetic. The ONLY reason it does not deter them is because they know they will get to sit on death row for 20-30 years, with endless appeals.PureFodder wrote:
No. It doesn't appear to deter people and if you find out you convicted the wrong person it's a bit hard to reverse the process.
You can see it now:
"hmmm, shall I kill this fool for trying to killing my brother and stealing all my drugs, well the pentaly for this crime will certainly be death, but knowing the legal system of this country I can probably keep an appeal running for a good decade or two before they'll be able to actually kill me. Although there is a significant incovenience to spending the rest of my life in a cell, no more drugs sex and fun for me, but at least I'll be able to use the time as an opportunaty to read all those books I never seem to get time for as a drug dealer. I've heard so many grat things about A tail of two cities."
BANG.
Your logic is so flawed it's pathetic. The ONLY reason it does not deter them is because they know they will get to sit on death row for 20-30 years, with endless appeals. If the process is much faster it would be the best deterant ever. People in Iraq under Saddam feared what would happen to them, because it happened in that instance, not 30 years later. I'll admit some innocent people are in jail, but what percentage do you honestly think are innocent who are killed? Once you kill someone you give up all rights to life, and you are no longer a productive member of society, and should be dealt with accordingly. People have it WAY to easy in jail, cable, food, free clothes, and a free roof over their head.PureFodder wrote:
No. It doesn't appear to deter people and if you find out you convicted the wrong person it's a bit hard to reverse the process.
Doesn't matter what we do, they will hate us anyway. They hate anyone who does not follow their own beliefs.PureFodder wrote:
One of the ways that is typically used to get radical agendas pushed onto the masses is to give them a common enemy. The Nazis used the Jews, the Islamic extremists are using the USA, the 'great satan'. By invading Islamic countries, killing civillians and torturing people the US is doing a great job of actively fitting and confirming its own demonised image. If you don't want these people to hate you, don't keep on giving them reasons to hate you.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
That is easy Cam.....look at the history of the world. Hitler spread Germany and its Nazi ideology throughout Europe and almost defeated Russis. But of course it didn't reach the west (America, South America). Think about it for a moment. Even though the Nazi ideology didn't reach all over the globe....it was STILL a threat to us ALL.CameronPoe wrote:
Certain western countries are bearing the brunt of islamic extremist terrorism, mainly those supporting Israel or oppressive regimes in the middle east. Can you answer me why none of those countries listed have been affected?
PS The 7/7 bombing, one particular act of terrorism, was in retaliation for the Iraq war - as stated in their suicide videos.
During the Cold war. Communism spread throughout Eastern Europe and to many countries around southern Asia. Even though it didn't reach our shores...it STILL was a threat to the world. All you have to understand is that just because Radical Islam hasn't knocked on our door step YET...it is STILL a threat to us all. Do not forget a lot of countries outside the ME and Europe are facing Islamic movements and terror attacks. Many of those countries have nothing to do with Iraq. NOTHING!!!!! For example Indonesia, Phillipines, areas in Southern China and countries in Africa.
People need to stop blaming the war on Iraq for an Ideology that already existed and will exist long after we leave. The radical Islamic Ideology is a global movement. It hasn't reached too much outside of Europe and the ME but if you really look closely...it is starting to go beyond those areas into countries in Africa, Asia, Europe..etc.. It is just like any other sweeping Ideology that was a threat in the past.
How is this ideology movement any different. Yes, they are more difficult to target and fight because they don't have a border or uniforms. But they do have support and backing from countries who want to spread Radical Islam. Communism was similar in ways because countries like Russia and China armed and supported communist movements into South Korea, Vietnam and the west fought back. If we hadn't, communism would have been much more expansive, but at least we took it as a threat to freedom and helped fight it back and eventually won. It was won by a variety of actions. War, secret and blatant, and of course political and covert. They all played a part.
Radical Islam is no different. It wants to spread itself to all parts of the world. If you don't believe that then don't come crying to me when your grand kids are forced to rock back and forth while reciting the Koran. It IS a movement that is spreading like many ideologies of the past and sooner or later countries and armies will have to unite or fall one by one as many countries did during WW2 and the communists expansion into Eastern Europe and southern Asia. The Radical Islamic movement is a threat to us ALL....doesn't matter if it is here nor in South America...it is a threat regardless...just like the past.
Just because we don't have a problem here YET....does not mean that we are not facing a threat to the world....WE ARE!! To ignore that would be extremely ignorant. At least America will be ready.
Read my post. They are using ways of recycling it, to reuse it again as an energy source. To the other person who said it's dirty. Wrong again. The waste is stored in holding tanks of water, then reused, once recycled. Coal fired plants use water from big water sources, and heat the water as well, without harm I mite add. Hell the fishing is so good by the outlets, do to the warmer water, the plants put in long docks, and let the public access them for fishing.imortal wrote:
That is because the (sorry, can't think of another term) tree-hugging hippies in the Democrat Party do not want the evil nuclear power which poisons the earth and produces waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years, and the US does not have a good plan to get rid of the waste(of course, that is because they fight tooth and nails to block any attempt to create a good plan to deal with the waste).Miller wrote:
Nuclear power is clean and safe, and reusable.. The only time I can think of something going wrong is when Russia made that one that leaked and the government didn't tell anyone. The US Navy (and I'm guessing others) are using nuclear powered ships now and nothing has happened. Nuclear energy is completely safe and will save money. Why is it the Dems want nuclear power plants to be given a chance in Iran but don't want any here?psychotoxic187 wrote:
That is entirely not true. Nuclear power plants in the US have never had a fatality, during operation or during new construction. They also have ways of recycling the waste to reuse for power now.
It is a decades old issue that I think is being fought by reflex by the greenies in the Dem party.
That is entirely not true. Nuclear power plants in the US have never had a fatality, during operation or during new construction. They also have ways of recycling the waste to reuse for power now.BN wrote:
its just too dangerous. you can have all the safeguards in the world but accidents happen
They are no where near the same. One is a hard shutdown, like unplugging it. The other gives Windows a chance to shutdown, and save anything you mite of done.liquidat0r wrote:
I think it's fine. Just pressing the power button is the same as "Start" --> "Shut down"
When using dual-channel RAM, which most likely he is, you are required to use either channel A, or channel B. Which happens to be one yellow, and one black. That is why he's getting errors.ReTox wrote:
Actually you are both right... Slot 0 and Slot 2 (left side of each bank) are the same colour. Same for Slot 1 and Slot 3 (Right side). It's called interleaving and it's kinda required to get the full duplex of the RAM.psychotoxic187 wrote:
No they shouldn't. That's why the pairs are separate. Same thing on my ASUS A8N-SLI SE. Channel A is both slots on the left, channel B is both slots on the right.rabee2789b wrote:
They should be in the same slot colour....
If you don't have DDR when using the right RAM in the right slots then, since you've verified the RAM as good with single mem-tests, the mobo is toast.
No they shouldn't. That's why the pairs are separate. Same thing on my ASUS A8N-SLI SE. Channel A is both slots on the left, channel B is both slots on the right.rabee2789b wrote:
They should be in the same slot colour....psychotoxic187 wrote:
What slots do you have the RAM in? If you're looking at the board, they should both go in the first two slots on the left. First one yellow, second one black. That's how the channels are set up on most of the ASUS boards I have seen.
What slots do you have the RAM in? If you're looking at the board, they should both go in the first two slots on the left. First one yellow, second one black. That's how the channels are set up on most of the ASUS boards I have seen.
This statement makes no sense what so ever. Since when is war EVER safe?{USMC}Louis wrote:
I believe that we should contiune but only untill it is safe for the troops andd for the United States as a whole..When that will be I dont know
First off people need to get this ridiculous idea, that guns kill people, out of their head. A gun is just a piece of steel, until a person uses it. Last, no matter how many laws you make, they are useless unless enforced.Varegg wrote:
How many have read about and have issues about the Brady campaign ?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/mod … poster.gif
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/mod … ce-map.gif
Here's someone who has hit the nail on the head. You could pass a new more restrictive law everyday, that won't stop illegal ownership, and use. People are flawed. You have to give trust to people who deserve it, but you HAVE to punish the people who abuse their rites. Which is not being done properly.Major_Spittle wrote:
I think that the US should pass a law lowering the muzzle velocity of all guns by 20% and enact a tax on kleenx so they can balance the budget due to all the cry-asses who haven't figured out that criminals break laws so passing new gun laws is as pointless as shitting in a glovebox.
Gee, here's a thought. Automatic death sentence for conviction of violent crime when a firearm is involved. Only one appeal. Punishment must take place within 2 years of conviction if no appeal is granted.
Them maybe I could see some murders and thieve get creative and start using more knives, poison, bats, cars, and my favorite: dropping a piano on someone.
Buy replica guns? That's not collecting , if it's fake. Would you ask people to collect fake stamps? On another note, it is no where near being stupid logic. We are not talking about nukes we are talking about guns. People need to realise it's just a piece of steel until a human being uses it. Stop blaming the gun, and blame the idiot people using them in a criminal fashion. It's spot on logic. Just like drugs. Drugs are illegal but they still get them. Ban guns, and only the criminals will get them, leaving lawabiding citizens defenseless.Bubbalo wrote:
So then buy replica guns or guns which have been disabled.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Owning a gun is called a hobby. Some collect stamps, and others like to collect guns. It's just an item until the wrong person gets their hands on it.That's dumb logic. Why not give everyone access to nukes, afterall, if you don't the bad countries will just kill with something else.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Ban guns, and the bad guys will kill with something else, along with their illegal guns, leaving lawabiding citizens defenseless.
Owning a gun is called a hobby. Some collect stamps, and others like to collect guns. It's just an item until the wrong person gets their hands on it. Ban guns, and the bad guys will kill with something else, along with their illegal guns, leaving lawabiding citizens defenseless.SharkyMcshark wrote:
Im sick of people that argue like this! "Oh well if guns kill poeple lets ban cars and knives and trains and baseball bats..."Smitty5613 wrote:
well, do you think banning cars is an overreaction based on the possibility of deadly accidents??
Guns are made to MAIM and INCAPACITATE. Don't give me that sport shooting bullshit either. If you're a sport shooter and you own a COMPETITION pistol or rifle, well good on ya (as long as you practise your hobby safely of course). Don't try and tell me you own a Glock 19 or a Beretta so you can go sport shooting or hunting.
The reason people call for a ban on guns (and swords, and flickknives, and maces etc) is because they were designed with only one concept in mind: KILLING (and/or MAIMING)
Cars, while they do kill people, are made for TRANSPORT. Kitchen knives are made for CUTTING FOOD. Baseball bats are made for BASEBALL. Guns are made for KILLING
Only because they aren't allowed guns. What's next? Outlaw anything sharp? It might kill someone!Ryan wrote:
The Aussies use the real weapons, none of this gun bullshit
Sorry I'm late to this thread. I have no idea what "electricity industry" you are in, but here in the states, there are plenty of clean options. One for example, which is becoming a big thing here in Wisconsin, is wind turbines. Another, is a small University in California built a power station, which supplies power to a pretty good size grid, running on waste from local restaurants. There are plenty alternatives. On another note, Nuclear power plants are by far the safest plants here in the states, yet they don't build them anymore. No one has ever died in the construction, or running of a Nuclear power plant in USA. They are making good strides as well dealing with the waste. Some places are now recycling that waste, and reusing it.CameronPoe wrote:
I work in the electricity industry. I can't see any alternative. Renewable energy is pretty much bullshit (apart from tidal maybe).liquidat0r wrote:
Who says they have to use nuclear power?
You have a good point. I have never worked in that type of union. Unions have some bad, and good points. Just as the non-union do as well. But, you are correct it should not be forced upon people, this is a capitalist country.lowing wrote:
I agree totally, but lets not forget I am addressing NON-skilled labor, which seems has you exempt from my argument. an aircraft cleaner, a baggage handler, etc..........psychotoxic187 wrote:
You have to learn the skill through apprenticeship. In Wisconsin here, non-union sector is known for doing poor jobs, but they are cheaper. They hire anybody, and call them a skilled Journeyman. In the Union you have start out at the bottom, and work your way through your apprenticeship. I bust my ass, and take pride in what I do. I am currently working at a powerplant building the turbine, and sorry to tell you, if your lazy, and don't pull your own weight, you are run off the job. You also get the reputation for being a poor worker. I have worked both non-union, and union. I have seen equally lazy people in both sides.lowing wrote:
So is my argument not true. A unionized non-skilled worker, has not had his worth artifically risen? Funny how a non-English speaking Mexican can come here, illegally, and do your unionized job, and more than likely, work circles around you for a lot less money.
I also might add, I have worked in union shops before at the airlines as well, you are not going to tell me anything that will convince me unions are not corrupt, worthless and protect, well, only those that acutally need a union, so they don't get their lazy asses fired out of their position.
You have to learn the skill through apprenticeship. In Wisconsin here, non-union sector is known for doing poor jobs, but they are cheaper. They hire anybody, and call them a skilled Journeyman. In the Union you have start out at the bottom, and work your way through your apprenticeship. I bust my ass, and take pride in what I do. I am currently working at a powerplant building the turbine, and sorry to tell you, if your lazy, and don't pull your own weight, you are run off the job. You also get the reputation for being a poor worker. I have worked both non-union, and union. I have seen equally lazy people in both sides.lowing wrote:
So is my argument not true. A unionized non-skilled worker, has not had his worth artifically risen? Funny how a non-English speaking Mexican can come here, illegally, and do your unionized job, and more than likely, work circles around you for a lot less money.Kmarion wrote:
Really? I'm pretty sure the shipping cost between UPS (Union) and FEDEX (Non union) are competitive. Using your car analogy leaves allot to be explained when looking at how much more the rest of the world pays for their non-union built automobiles. Believe it or not there are plenty of people who bust their ass in unions. Many people are working there way through the company and have aspirations of management in the future. Unions do not decide who gets promoted. I worked for UPS. There were times I would have over 300 stops in one day with 500 packages. If you don't think that's pouring everything out into your work you are mistaken.lowing wrote:
Never mind EARNING good wages, that is why a frickin car costs so much ,because the unionized idiot that puts his bolt into his hole, has artificially had his value to the company risen to an unrealistic level by unions.
I also might add, I have worked in union shops before at the airlines as well, you are not going to tell me anything that will convince me unions are not corrupt, worthless and protect, well, only those that acutally need a union, so they don't get their lazy asses fired out of their position.
You bet your ass mother nature used math. It's called DNA, and RNA.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes. Space station. Structurally sound building. The World Trade Center. Anything.psychotoxic187 wrote:
You said a space station. You are also comparing small shelters to buildings made from structural steel. Get real, you cannot build a structurally sound building without math.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Trial and error. Experience. Experimentation.
That's how.
I build a house out of sticks. It blows away.
I build a house out of mud. It doesn't blow away.
I didn't need any understanding of math to realise that mud is a better building material than sticks.
As to how big you make it - you make it big enough. How do you know it's big enough - when it's not too small.
These things do not require math.
Would you agree that bones are incredibly structurally sound?
Did mother nature sit down with her calculator and figure out how to build a bone?
No.
Bones evolved, through a process of trial and error.
We could build everything we have now, everything we ever going to have, and more, all through the process of trial and error, keeping those things that work and abandoning those things that don't.
Engineering may be a more efficient way of doing it, but that doesn't mean it is the only way.
Also, steel does not evolve. Neither would a building just evolve into what you want it to be.
You said a space station. You are also comparing small shelters to buildings made from structural steel. Get real, you cannot build a structurally sound building without math.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Trial and error. Experience. Experimentation.psychotoxic187 wrote:
If you think building a structure is the same as slapping leaves and sticks together, you really are ignorant. You CANNOT build a structural building without math, it's impossible. How would you know if the material you are using can support what you're building? Guess what, you need math for that. How tall will it be? How wide? Guess what math AGAIN.
That's how.
I build a house out of sticks. It blows away.
I build a house out of mud. It doesn't blow away.
I didn't need any understanding of math to realise that mud is a better building material than sticks.
As to how big you make it - you make it big enough. How do you know it's big enough - when it's not too small.
These things do not require math.
I'm a Union Millwright. I build conveyors, coal crushers, install pumps, and build/rebuild turbines.
If you think building a structure is the same as slapping leaves and sticks together, you really are ignorant. You CANNOT build a structural building without math, it's impossible. How would you know if the material you are using can support what you're building? Guess what, you need math for that. How tall will it be? How wide? Guess what math AGAIN.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Rubbish. All buildings could be built without the use of math.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Any building cannot be built without math. It's not possible. You need distances of material, and where to place the material.
OK, those of you who think we couldn't possibly live without using math - here's something you should try:
One day, go out into whatever 'wilderness' you have near where you live - don't take a tent, don't take any food that doesn't require cooking - now stay out there for at least 48 hours.
Take a ruler and a calculator if you want - you're not going to need them.
For a start you'll need to build shelter - what d'u do?
Do you go out and measure all the bits of wood you can find, then sit down a design the ideal framework?
Do you measure all the leaves and figure which give the best coverage ?
No, you go out, you find some wood that looks roughly correct, you build a frame, you get some leaves, you fix the leaves to the frame. Job done.
Now what about a fire.
Again, d'u go out and measure all the wood you can find and asses the exact burn characteristics of each different type?
Do you sit down and design the ideal structure for your fire?
No, you go out, collect up any wood you can, you pile it up and you burn it. Job done.
Now spend, you entire life in the wilderness. After a while, through trial and error, you learn that some structures are more stable, some leaves more effective at keeping you dry, some fires burn more efficiently. You learn all that without ever needing to understand one iota of math.
We may be able to describe all that we do using math, that doesn't mean we are always using math when we do those things.
We do not have to use math.
Any building cannot be built without math. It's not possible. You need distances of material, and where to place the material.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:
Are you kidding?? electricity... computers... every single electrical thing created, was created with math (and physics obviously)Scorpion0x17 wrote:
have invented all the things we have, without using mathematics.
there is NOTHING that we have now that could have been created without some form of math.Yes a space station could be made without using math.Janysc wrote:
Oh no, that's completely backwards. Engineering means using math to solve, for one, construction problems. Could a space station be made without using math?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
...have invented all the things we have, without using mathematics.
Could we construct an eye, bones, a brain or a whole body without using maths? Nature did.
We could do what nature did. We could evolve a space station, a computer, cars, electricity, anything - none of it had to be engineered.
All of it could have been invented by other means.
Not true at all. With the force of floors falling from above, and a fire burning. The floors below it will have a hard time staying intact, and not collapsing. It's simple gravity. Steel changes drastically under fire, and stress. Steel is in no way the same as a tree, neither is a skyscraper. All buildings are supported by the foundation as well, so not sure what you mean here. My point was, propane blew, started the building on fire, and destroyed it. It was still a steel erected building.jonsimon wrote:
Propane blew apart skyscrapers? Because your average 4 story building is drastically different from a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are better imagined upside-down. They are suspended by the foundation, the only way to knock down a skyscraper the way the towers fell is to attack the foundation. Did the planes hit the bottom of the buildings or the top? The top. They couldn't have knocked down those buildings. For another analogy, think of the towers as two trees. If you take to the top of a tree with an axe, it will never fall. Chop away at the bottom and it falls. Not exactly the same as a skyscraper, but it gets the point across.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yes, all the stuff in the building caught fire. It will burn from an explosion. Look at the story here of Faulk corporation. Propane blew apart buildings with nothing standing left. The impact alone from the jet would of weakened the structural integrity, then all it takes is one suppost beam to fail, and the rest will follow. If one floor fails, and crashes down, the lower floors will not be able to sustain further pressure from the crashing down.jonsimon wrote:
Dude, to burn anything you need heat and time. If any kind of starter burns all at once, you don't develop a fire. You can wave wood through a fire without it catching, and anyone who has made a campfire knows that the conditions required are very specific. Nearly all the limited supply of fuel burst into flames at the same time, it just isn't physically possible that flames took that building down. (Esspecially since tenfold larger blazes have burned for hours, one even a day long, and the worst damage was the partial collapse of a few floors at the top.)
Bottom line, those two planes could not have taken down those buildings, so something else had to.
Yes, all the stuff in the building caught fire. It will burn from an explosion. Look at the story here of Faulk corporation. Propane blew apart buildings with nothing standing left. The impact alone from the jet would of weakened the structural integrity, then all it takes is one suppost beam to fail, and the rest will follow. If one floor fails, and crashes down, the lower floors will not be able to sustain further pressure from the crashing down.jonsimon wrote:
Dude, to burn anything you need heat and time. If any kind of starter burns all at once, you don't develop a fire. You can wave wood through a fire without it catching, and anyone who has made a campfire knows that the conditions required are very specific. Nearly all the limited supply of fuel burst into flames at the same time, it just isn't physically possible that flames took that building down. (Esspecially since tenfold larger blazes have burned for hours, one even a day long, and the worst damage was the partial collapse of a few floors at the top.)psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yes it does. As well as all the material inside the building that caught fire from the jet fuel fire. The jet fuel acted as a catalyst.jonsimon wrote:
Not when it all burns at once in a giant fireball.
Bottom line, those two planes could not have taken down those buildings, so something else had to.
Here's a good read.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … tml?page=4
Yes it does. As well as all the material inside the building that caught fire from the jet fuel fire. The jet fuel acted as a catalyst.jonsimon wrote:
Not when it all burns at once in a giant fireball.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Jet fuel definately burns hot enough to distort, and weaken metal.
That could of been where it was welded as well. The black by the edges is melted steel, like when you cut steel with a torch, it's slag. Jet fuel definately burns hot enough to distort, and weaken metal.BN wrote:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE … _small.jpgHunterOfSkulls wrote:
If you really want to get them going, point out how steel support beams don't have to melt in order to fail. That always pisses them off.
I am no expert but that looks cut to me.
There are plenty of good unanswered questions along with a lot of shite as well.
You do not need a crack for. So long as both machines do not update at the same time, you're fine. I gave my Dell away, and used the xp disc to install it onto my custom built PC, works perfectly.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Maybe with a crack, but not legally.killinzero1 wrote:
ur wrong bc i have done it. with xpThe Stillhouse Kid wrote:
No single license version of Vista(or XP) can be installed and activated on two computers at the same time.
Test it with Prime95. But, usually if you bump it up that high, and it doesn't blue screen soon after, chances are it will be good.ilinear wrote:
Dangerous? My bad...
But yeah, he's played something like 14 hours of 2142 with it at that speed and hasn't had any problems, how else would you suggest I test the stability? He's put Orthos on overnight, so I'm still waiting on the results of that.
Oh yeah, I forgot to add, pretty much as soon as we did it, we loaded up BF2 for a good 2 hours, no problem.
That's just an ignorant statement. Glock's are not in any way shape or form crap. H&k are very well made weapons, and my personal favorites.King_County_Downy wrote:
Glocks are crap. H&K > All
How in the hell is it ghetto? It's a server case which is built solid as hell. It has plenty of room for fans, and cooling. Not to much more room than you'll ever need for expansion. Phase is more for hardcore overclockers, as in you'll be overclocking it 2 fold. Otherwise who cares if your cpu is that cold?Kmarion wrote:
ghetto..lol This isn't pimp my case .psychotoxic187 wrote:
Here's a really nice big case, with plenty of cooling, and plenty of room to expand.
http://www.xoxide.com/xulalcucu.html
Here's a really nice big case, with plenty of cooling, and plenty of room to expand.
http://www.xoxide.com/xulalcucu.html
http://www.xoxide.com/xulalcucu.html
They had a kid, which looks to be around ten. That's a lot longer then a few months!Roger Lesboules wrote:
Damn...he must have been drunk for months!
Nice vid!
Doesn't matter how they pronounce it. The word still has the same meaning, and there for should be considered offensive no matter who says it. It does'nt change meaning just because someone of a different race says it, Hypocritical big time.Disabl3d wrote:
Yea, but blacks use it differently towards each other and usually don't put the "errrrr" in it, which doesn't sound as racist. He obviously used the word with racists intensions to offend them any how, because he was pissed. Theres plenty of racism in comedy, still doesn't make it right...bobby177 wrote:
psychotoxic187 wrote:
While I agree with you, I find it a bit hypocritical. It is ok for one black to call another black the N word. If it's going to be an offensive word to them, then it should be considered offensive, no matter who it comes from. I've also seen lots of black comedians be racust towards whites. Why is that not a big deal?
While I agree with you, I find it a bit hypocritical. It is ok for one black to call another black the N word. If it's going to be an offensive word to them, then it should be considered offensive, no matter who it comes from. I've also seen lots of black comedians be racist towards whites. Why is that not a big deal?Masques wrote:
No reason to drop the N-bomb though.topthrill05 wrote:
They were most likely being total ass holes too him and he just blew up.
Remember that in America the oppressed can do no wrong.
Click start, then search, then all files, and folders. Type name of file, and it will find it.
Very true. Except, they still did not damn Studds, who did have sex with an underage boy. I agree though Foley should be dealt with, he was wrong. But, we're not talking only Republicans knew about this going on, we're talking about people from both sides turning a blind eye to it. They need to be dealt with as well.Masques wrote:
Studds was forced to give up his committee assignments, I don't recall Foley (who was deputy majority whip (4th highest ranking Republican in the house) being forced to give anything up in the years that this conduct has been known. You can't force someone to resign from office. The next best thing in such an instance is loss of assignments (ie. power) which affects influence and money. None of that excuses the behaviour of the individuals in question.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Here's another funny story some of you mite like. It's funny how they slam Foley, which he was wrong, and needs to be punished. The Democrats have a nasty skeleton in their closet. This guy did the same thing, except he took the underage page on a cruise, and had sex with him, then was re-elected to office 5 times after the fact. Democrats are such hypocrites.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs … 02issues01
We even have an example of a congressman who has been charged and pled guilty of a crime (perjury and influence peddling), but who has yet to resign his seat (Bob Ney R-Ohio). Until a congressperson is actually convicted of a crime there is nothing that can remove them from office (save impeachment, which almost never works) if they don't want to vacate a seat.
You're partially correct. If the guy is having sex with underage boys, that's breaking the law, and something should be done about it. Same with soliciting sex from underage boys.jonsimon wrote:
Who gives two shits? I don't care what politicians do in their personal lives as long as they revieve due punishment.
Here's another funny story some of you mite like. It's funny how they slam Foley, which he was wrong, and needs to be punished. The Democrats have a nasty skeleton in their closet. This guy did the same thing, except he took the underage page on a cruise, and had sex with him, then was re-elected to office 5 times after the fact. Democrats are such hypocrites.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs … 02issues01
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs … 02issues01
You mean like the Democrats, who want to get rid of our guns, and disarm law abiding citizens?golgoj4 wrote:
What about people that wanna make fun of the crazy republicans but @ the same time have a convo with the ones NOT intrested in shredding the constitution? Is that this thread?
Doesn't matter. Ban guns, and criminals will still have them, just like drugs. They are illegal, and they still find tons of ways to get their hands on them. Ban guns, then what? People will use anything they can, and then what? Ban anything that can hurt you? When do you stop?.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Ok, we'll change that to Western countries. Still, lets remember the fact that the gun laws in Somalia were brought in due to the massive gun crime problem that was already there. Now the Law enforcement agencies are pitifully underequipt to deal with the problem and the law hasn't been in place anywhere near long enough for it to have the desired effects.kr@cker wrote:
not a good argument in somalia, just one of several dozen such places where a ban on guns curiously results in the highest gun death rates.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
a) All the evidence from all countries that have banned guns shows that this isn't true, a populace without guns results in criminals without guns, after all, the criminals get the guns by stealing them of people. In the UK the majority of gun crime is committed with air-guns.
No, it would suck. It's a work station card, for CAD, and editing, it has a totally different architechture.Des.Kmal wrote:
it wouldnt.... "suck" its for video editing adn rendering... and for like 40 inch monitors. it would play all high..._j5689_ wrote:
The FireGL series is a workstation card so it would suck for gaming anyway.daffytag wrote:
I dont think the gaming market needs this yet.
Yea they were there. They also found them to be in violation of UN resolutions, including having long range missiles, and firing upon our planes, which were doing patrols in accordance with UN resolutions. Funny how people forget this stuff.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, President Bush, as Clinton's administration, said in several times there were WMD's in Iraq based on false information. You can't invade a country coz you think they are violating UN resolution. In fact the UN inspectors were there just before the invasion if I remember well.lowing wrote:
WMD's were presumed in Iraq because IRAQ locked out the UN inspectors mandated to be there by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) that Iraq continually vioated all during the 90's......We resumed hostilities with Iraq because of these violations, not specifically for WMD's. WMD's were a huge concern, but the reason was resolution violations.sergeriver wrote:
I totally agree, it's hypocrite to criticize GWB for having the same presumption than Clinton, but it's not hypocrite to criticize him for invading Iraq over those presumptions.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article … 2100.shtml
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but the name calling shows you to be quite ignorant. They attack anyone who is not a follower of their religion.PRiMACORD wrote:
I see. I guess China, Japan and the rest of Asia are all Muslim right? They don't seem to catch any bombs.psychotoxic187 wrote:
They are targeting us, because they are Religous extremeists who hate our way of life, and nothing more. They believe if you do not follow their religion, you in turn must die, and pay for your sins.
Dumbass.
They are targeting us, because they are Religous extremeists who hate our way of life, and nothing more. They believe if you do not follow their religion, you in turn must die, and pay for your sins. People need to wake up. Don't just blame Republicans for what has happened, because last time I looked this war was voted on, and passed. Not only did republicans vote yes, get this, so did democrats!Gawwad wrote:
There are other aproaches than war.usmarine2005 wrote:
Or just sit back and do nothing.Gawwad wrote:
Yeah, declaring war on terrorism ought to stop it...
Great minds lead the USA.
Great minds in Finland.
Why do you think the muslim terrorists are targetting your people?