TheDon

You need one of these:

Phones always set to vibrate. I hate ring tones, not just because they're mostly crap, but because they demand attention from you immediately. Often I'm too busy to answer a call straight away, so they just serve as unnecessary distractions.

I really don't see what's so bad about the friend zone, it's simply where you end up when a girl likes you as a friend but not romantically. If anything acceptance of the friend zone is a good thing, it stops guys sticking around on the belief that one day the girl is going to realise how awesome you are and you're going to get your Hollywood romcom ending. Knowing you're in the friend zone is knowing that she doesn't see you in the way you want, and that no matter what you do you probably aren't going to get out of it. It's pretty much the opposite of what CED seems to be saying. It doesn't imply every woman should want to sleep with you, it's pretty much the exact opposite really, that they have a choice and that once they've chosen that they don't want to sleep with you, there's not much you can really do about it.

Except there are services which make it impossible for them to track you. VPNs that don't log, TOR, just two of many options to avoid being traced. Can they not get a court order for said VPN company to release records? Saying that surely VPN company's that naturally don't record IP's will surely be made illegal as you could use one to do any naughty thing you like on the Internet? Record that don't exist? Sure. You can't make it illegal to not track people. It's like making it illegal for a car to do over 70 in the UK as that's the maximum legal limit. Just because something can be used to break the law it doesn't mean you can legislate so it can't be. You believe it when VPN's say they dont record all their data, yeah of course. I'm sure when all the bad people from sex pests to possible terrorists are using VPN's to hide their dastardly deeds that it will be made law that VPN's have to release their records for something. Otherwise almost anything could be planned on the internet in complete privacy, i feel safe already! TOR is designed specifically to be completely anonymous. Good luck finding out anything about who's using TOR other than what exit node they're connected to. Brilliant, terrorists around the world are using this right now and there is nothing various govement a can do about it! You seem to know everything, I reckon there are people that work for governments that know more than you; god help us if they dont. You know it's funny, I actually looked at applying for a job in GCHQ before, but I'd have had to take a pay cut, and move to London, so I decided against it. Guess what that means? It means other people, who know more than me, have probably made the same decision. The pay in the private sector for IT experts is far far higher than what the government offer, hence the people that know the most, do not generally work for governments. It's really not a case of "god help us if they don't", you seem to be advocating a police state, where all communications and movements are monitored, I mean how else are we going to ensure our safety?

Except there are services which make it impossible for them to track you. VPNs that don't log, TOR, just two of many options to avoid being traced. Can they not get a court order for said VPN company to release records? Saying that surely VPN company's that naturally don't record IP's will surely be made illegal as you could use one to do any naughty thing you like on the Internet? Record that don't exist? Sure. You can't make it illegal to not track people. It's like making it illegal for a car to do over 70 in the UK as that's the maximum legal limit. Just because something can be used to break the law it doesn't mean you can legislate so it can't be. You believe it when VPN's say they dont record all their data, yeah of course. I'm sure when all the bad people from sex pests to possible terrorists are using VPN's to hide their dastardly deeds that it will be made law that VPN's have to release their records for something. Otherwise almost anything could be planned on the internet in complete privacy, i feel safe already! TOR is designed specifically to be completely anonymous. Good luck finding out anything about who's using TOR other than what exit node they're connected to.

Except there are services which make it impossible for them to track you. VPNs that don't log, TOR, just two of many options to avoid being traced. Can they not get a court order for said VPN company to release records? Saying that surely VPN company's that naturally don't record IP's will surely be made illegal as you could use one to do any naughty thing you like on the Internet? Record that don't exist? Sure. You can't make it illegal to not track people. It's like making it illegal for a car to do over 70 in the UK as that's the maximum legal limit. Just because something can be used to break the law it doesn't mean you can legislate so it can't be.

You just need to convince a Jury that the law is wrong. Jury Nullification should happen more often.

Except there are services which make it impossible for them to track you. VPNs that don't log, TOR, just two of many options to avoid being traced.

My S3 does well to last a day. But I'm constantly going through no signal areas which is a bitch on battery life. When the radio is searching for a signal the battery just drops like a stone. I miss the old days of not having to charge a phone for a week.

They have no idea what's about to happen

Be careful which emulator you use though, a couple of them are full of ad popups that'll just spam your notification bar and browser.

People seem to forget that NK always make outrageous statements like this, and they're always for their own people. They don't actually plan on nuking anyone (they're not that dumb), they just have to keep up the pretences that they're a military power. Show their own people how strong they are. When they inevitably don't get invaded it'll all be down to their military might and threatening destruction on everyone, rather than the reality where people just don't really give a shit about NK.

Great tribute by the WWE

Are you actually serious?You think if someone is sent off or not should be judged partially on the effect it would have on the match? That says it all, you have no clue. If someone is sent off or not has nothing to do with the effect it will have on the match, or even the response from the players, all it has to do is the laws of the game. 99.9% expected a yellow or less? You must have took math at the same place they taught SHA's accountants, because there's a far bigger split than that. And people who actually look at the incident objectively, and not based on ridiculous metrics like if it'll effect the match, are quite clear that it's a red card offence. The arguments against the red card seem to be "he wasn't aware of the player" or "it ruined the match" both of which are entirely irrelevant and should be completely dismissed. Actually no, I lie, that he wasn't aware of the player shouldn't be dismissed, it actually makes the incident worse.

Except you know, Madrid would have a pretty strong case to argue that Man U should have had a player sent off but the ref bottled it.

Isn't that rather the point that is being made? I guess it depends how you're defining belief.I meant it in a sense other than the religious sense, in the way that after drawing a opinion after consulting the evidence you might say you believe it to be true, despite not having certainty. The problem of course is that ancient history isn't a science. It falls way short of the levels of proof needed for the scientific standard, you're never going to get a 5 sigma confidence level when it comes to the existence of some bloke 2000 odd years ago, so the people that study it instead have far lower expectations. Now I don't think there's any actual first hand evidence he existed, everything we know that references him was wrote after he died. But that doesn't mean it can't be used as evidence. If there was enough 3rd party sources whose stories collaborated and were demonstrably correct in other areas then maybe we could draw conclusions that he did indeed exist. Some people think that is the case. The problem of course that most people that study this sort of history do it with a vested interest, already of the mind that Jesus existed and looking for ways to justify that view, rather than coming at it from the scientific method of disproving. I'm not against the idea that Jesus existed, maybe he did, maybe the few lines wrote about him in non-christian sources are really all there is. Maybe he was just some guy that gained a few followers, and then in the decades after the stories ran away with themselves. He wouldn't be the first guy to preach, won't be the last. Ultimately though, I don't really care. Exist or not he wasn't the son of god.

It's dangerous play precisely because he doesn't know the guy is there. I don't get how people don't understand this. Watching the ball doesn't mean you can start kung fu kicking across the pitch. You're responsible for where your feet end up, and not watching where you're launching a high boot into is by definition reckless play, and therefore a red card is entirely appropriate for it.

It was reckless, I can see the case for a straight red there. That he wasn't watching the player isn't a reason for it not being a red like the commentators think, it was a reason FOR it being a red. If you raise your boot like that you damn well best make sure there's no one in the way of it.

That really depends on how you define "Jesus of the bible".If you mean someone that did everything that is attributed to Jesus in the bible, then no. If you mean a Jew called Jesus who got baptised by John the baptist and was crucified by Pilate, then there's widespread belief that he did.

There's enough murderous, organised and well funded operations hell bent on mayhem as it stands.As the gap between rich and poor grows and living standards drop due to scarcity of resources, the numbers of disaffected will rise. And somehow these "disaffected" poor people are going to be able to spend a fortune on a 3d printer, rather than just going down the same route they go down now to get a firearm? I don't think so somehow. I'm not talking about printing explosives at molecular level, or making nuclear weapons. I'm talking about automating basic chemical lab apparatus and processes. Personally I think the proliferation of firearms is a bad thing. You can see the next argument. "Everyone's got guns now, we have to keep them to protect ourselves." Everyone isn't going to have guns, it's still illegal to manufacture or own a gun in the UK. That's not going to change if someone can print off a trigger assembly in the UK. They'd STILL be breaking the law. We don't need new laws when the ones we have are sufficient to keep people safe.

It's not exactly strong either. There's no need for much strength in the magazine, it's just a solid block. It doesn't have to deal with extreme changes in pressure or temperature, it's not going to get hot like a barrel would, there's not going to be any expanding gases in it. The sorts of "restricted lab equipment" Xann is talking about has extremely tight tolerance levels on manufacture, and extremely high tolerances on things like operating pressure and temperature. Not the sort of thing you can easily replicate at home with the sort of 3D printer that's likely to be on the market any time in the future. Slow to load, crap to aim. I wouldn't say crossbows are anywhere near as much of a thread as a decent plastic blade would be. Especially due to the ease of concealment and the fact the entire country is set up to detect knives with metal detectors.Prison shankings have long taught is sharpened plastics are more than sufficient to do lethal damage. But the point again is we already have laws against the ownership of things like these, we don't need laws covering the distribution of information on how to make them. Thought crimes aren't illegal, and we should do everything we can to keep it that way. Leave the jails for people that actually do something to break the law, not just have the information on how to.

Except it's already illegal to 3d print a gun in the UK. The US law on manufacturing a firearm are more complex, but iirc for the most part it's fine for personal use as long as it's not fully auto. So why exactly do we have to do anything at all?

For the most part it is.The internet just gives you greater access to the nutjobs out there. It gives them a forum where they otherwise might not have had one before. I think you're seriously over estimating the ability of 3d printers. Unless they get down to the molecular level then we're not exactly going to be able to print the chemicals needed for explosives. You're still going to need access to the raw materials. Being able to print a centrifuge isn't going to help you enrich uranium, especially as your centrifuge will be made out of the weakest plastic going and fracture into a million pieces before it gets up to speed. They are being freedom fighters, they're fighting for the free flow of information that should be taken for granted. Instead people want to limit what we have access to, whilst enjoying unlimited access to everything themselves. Aaron Swartz killed himself after being hounded by the authorities for years and under the treat of 35 years in prison for doing nothing more than wanting to facilitate the free flow of information and provide access to scientific journals that tax payers money had funded the research for for free. Tell me, how many years have the people who bought down the banks faced? Who in the libor fixing scandal is even going to stand trial? Yet for the crime of wanting people to have free access to information someone is driven to suicide by the treat of life in prison and 7 figure fines. One of the founding principles of the US was that any right not specifically given to government in the constitution should exist with the people by default. These days it seems to be the opposite, you can only do what the government says you can (and this isn't limited to the US, it's the same here in the UK). We've allowed ourselves to become submissive to the people that are meant to represent us, and handing away more and more of our rights under the paranoid banner of terrorism or violent crime is not what people should be doing. Instead we should be taking back more of our rights, standing up and saying "no, you work for us" and taking government back out from under the wing of big business and back to what it should be, a govnerment of the people, by the people, for the people. If it takes people standing up for their second amendment rights to do that, then that's fine with me. Where do we draw the line? Do we prevent people being able to print sharp objects? Maybe 3d printers should have firmware that rounds over all edges to make sure no one can use them to create a knife? Maybe we should pre-emptively charge anyone in possession of a 3d printer with going equipped to steal as they can use it to print out a set of lock picks.

Being clearings in the woods isn't against the law.However the right to impart and receive information is a fundamental right that all people have. It's not illegal to tell someone how to do something, you can find out how to do pretty much anything you want easily enough anyway, from picking a lock to making a nuclear bomb, the information on how to do it is, and should always be, available to anyone. I'd argue that you should be locked up before these "clearings in the woods".

And on most websites it's utterly pointless, stopping the scripts running gets rid of tonnes of annoyances, improves security, and it's fairly rare for it to stop the site functioning properly. It depends on the websites. If I tried writing the websites we develop at work without javascript they'd be 10x harder to use. The asynchronous loading that ajax calls give you enable you to give immediate user feedback without having to wait for entire pages to reload because you changed one dropdown or sort order so a grid needs to refresh. I wouldn't dream of writing a website without making extensive use of ajax these days, because it simply makes for a much better user experience. If you're just dealing with static content you can get away without it, but for anything that allows user interaction it's a necessity.