Honestly nothing against you but I read that as "free loving raper"
What is that Mascara all over her face?
At 80 I get about 53, at 100 though my turbo is hovering closer to 20psi and I'm doing about 3000rpm, it does about 34mph per 1000 rpm.
Just because you have a druggie dillah car.
looks like barbie crossed with morph.
I'd love to see that. My Golf at 100Mph does about 25mpg as I have the onscreen readout which is pretty accurate I doubt your car does double. Now OK fair enough to you, if your trip computer says that 100mph you get 45mpg who am I to doubt that.
For reference I average about 53.5mpg in my car which involves a 3 mile stop-start, heavy traffic cold engine commute 5 days a week. I don't drive "slowly" when out and about either, overtake most things lol. If I drove "sensibly" then I'd probably get about 65 average. The key is smoothness and forward planning!! Pointless flooring it only to have to slow down at the next set of lights..you see there are traffic heads 300 yards ahead which have just gone red, off the accelerator and let the car coast slowing itself without wasting energy using brakes...free mpg.
I was just taken aback by the screens etc, I hated the gearstick that's one thing that did annoy me.
The CRZ is pretty nice, haven't driven one but sat in one and fitted me fine, really sporty driving position but it'd probably be slow as shit...even the tuned one isn't THAT quick - but you know there's more to life than saving 50 quid here and there on Tax...I'm not sure about company car tax as I'm not involved in that (and it's probably more than £50) but I know I'd rather pay a little more in CC tax and have something like a Volvo diesel or the VW diesel than a hybrid. The diesels will be both more reliable, quicker, nicer to drive and more economical - but in terms of running costs and "kindness to the environment" any of the cars I've listed is better, mainly the Volvo and the Veedub because the big heavy batteries in the hybrids are very very bad and need replacing (at your expense) every 5-7 years.
Again Tristan you jump to conclusions, Octagon Toyota in Reading, test drove a Prius about 6 months ago after having being given a lift home from a work party by an ex-colleague who owned a Focus...no wait, I mean a Prius. (I wasn't drinking it was just ending late, cold and raining and I didn't want to ride my motorcycle so you can't argue alcohol impaired my judgement :razz
Sorry sorry but wrong on both counts. I don't generally make up stuff on cars, only on matters of politics
Yeah mate it's not a good proposition...is worrying and it's going to be illegal anyway.
Yeah reading that seems that SOPA is put on hold and the whitehouse has already issued statements saying they won't veto anything that would stop the functionality and dynmic-ness of the web.
Also in that link it stated the portion regarding DNS blocking would be removed. Still baby steps I am fairly confident it won't be passed.
Yeah reading that seems that SOPA is put on hold and the whitehouse has already issued statements saying they won't veto anything that would stop the functionality and dynmic-ness of the web.
Also in that link it stated the portion regarding DNS blocking would be removed. Still baby steps I am fairly confident it won't be passed.
It won't do 45mpg at 100Mph simply because it can't do 100mph or 45mpg under any circumstance.
They are comfortable I will give them that and the interior is quite nice but aside from that it's a poor car, not because I am anti-hybrid, but because it's a crap hybrid car.
You know what is a better car, also is exempt from congestion charge (and thus either is no tax or a very nominal amount ie £30 a month)?
Toyota Auris for a start
Golf Bluemotion.
Volvo V50 DRIVe 1.6
Prius is the worst of the breed IMO. And it's true they are normally bought by ecomentalists who always go "I drive a prius you know"..
No you're not and this is why I'm not going to discuss it with him.
Show me some abuse i've said.
Talking of facts how are those conspiracist theory websites going?
To quote you, READ THE THREAD.
To be perfectly honest i haven't even watched the video (never said i did just said it was interesting) and when I have watched it I'll just think "ohh that's interesting" and go about my business
As I have said I've not posted any opinion on the actual subject just that I think you're an idiot.
When someone can have an intelligent and ADULT discussion with you then I will happily have a debate with you on a subject which I actually give a crap about. Currently any time someone makes valid points you just go "NO READ THESE WEBSITES *link to cospiracit website* hence why now I do not bother with you.
You keep going on like the whole world is an injustice where as everyone else just thinks you're deluded.
Last edited by S14 DRIFT, .
Sorry long post I promise it's no conspiracist crap like Racer X and I know it's hard to read I'm very tired and blah 
But it's worth a read I think..
I have 600GB of downloaded movies, TV shows etc, not ashamed of it. Most of them are fairly old (eg Knight Rider original series) which you can't buy anymore (not easily at least) and the people who make it are not making money any more from it anyway, the remaining majority is made up of items which I already have (or have had and since lost) on DVD and want to have them in one easy to find location for ease of viewing on my home PC.
If these publicists and production agencies made it easy for me to transfer, episode by episode, a Season of 24 for example, from DVD to my Computer, then I wouldn't have to download them again via Torrent. Yes I could rip them from the DVD but to RIP, edit file names and process the data raw from DVDs using programs which cost ME money then I will just download it. Technically this is copyright breach because believe it or not when you buy a DVD it's not actually "yours". It allows you (and technically only you, the purchaser) to watch the film on your own device in private.
Technically lending a CD, movie or game to a friend is a copyright breach. Watching it with your family is a copyright breach, if you have several music CDs and compile them onto a CD-R to play in your car, that's copyright breach. Hell technically you can only use it on one playback device ever so you should have one copy for your computer DVD drive and one for your home cinema in the lounge...otherwise oh guess what that's a copyright breach.
There is no grey areas when it comes to this - you are either within the terms of usage license and thus in compliance with copyright or you are not and you aren't.
I think the only shows I have which I haven't bought are The Wire and Torchwood, mainly because from reading online, seeing clips here and there, the shows seem good but I want to watch them properly hence why I downloaded them. If they are very good I will go and buy one from HMV.
What people don't realise is that SOPA isn't so much about the copyright, it's about control. And money.
I was reading about some 12 year old who downloaded an Album and got caught. The people who were suing her were filing for damages of $150,000 PER TRACK I shit you not.
Now I don't now if they ended up having to pay but I was reading a family were charged about $34,000 for downloading of illegal softwares over a 3 year period. The Mum and Dad didn't know, it was the 2 teenage boys who did it. Now how are you telling me that's just; fair; morally right; it's not it's ****ed up in every sense of the term.
When a record company signs an artist for example, the people behind SOPA are saying that it's ruining their lives, when I read somewhere the AVERAGE income for someone in the Entertainment biz is $65k. I'm not talking about performing artists I'm talking about people who work at record labels, production studios, publishers, etc... even doing the advertising on the street with leaflets about shows..so that covers from $5 an hour workers to $5000 an hour CEOs...
That's like £35k which is a VERY comfortable living and could just about support Yourself, your spouse and 2 children, even if the spouse was unemployed. Even if the spouse was on a minimum wage job you would have a joint income of around £55k which is above the UK national average of around £45k. This is new car every 2 years, holiday every year, keep up with technology amounts of money to live on.
They claim it's bad for the performing artist, well it's not really. I was reading somewhere (can't remember) and apparently, for example - Lilly Allen's recording deal was only worth about £40k a year. A good salary but far from the hundreds of thousands you would expect. She made the rest of her money (as in the hundreds of thousands you imagine) by doing live performances, merchandise, and brand associations etc, that's where the money is at. If a label dropped an artist they would either publish it independently (which isn't as hard as you would think especially with iTunes and digital downloading which is what 90% of song purchases are nowadays)
Most artists are grateful you even listen to their music, they generally don't care if you download/torrent it...these Artists include Jean Grae, Wiley.
When Drakes latest album "take care" was leaked he tweeted this in response : “Listen, enjoy it, buy it if you like it…” - and J.Cole is in favour as well...these are all well known artists in their specific genres and Drake and J.Cole are commercial artists.. OH NO A COMMERCIAL ARTIST WHO ISN'T AGAINST PIRACY IT'S ALL A LIE. Well no it isn't really.
Drake's Take Care album leaked online about a week before release (I think) and it was one of the MOST downloaded torrents that week, after only a few hours the torrent had about 6000 seeds..close to 20000 peers. Oh my god you might think but no, it was a #1 album. A similar story happened with J.Cole..his leaked album went to #1. Thus proving that tormenting does not necessarily equal loss of sale.
Say Bob wanted Drakes album but was poor or a cheapskate..he goes to download it, it finishes, he listens and is happy - all done.
However if Bob wanted to download Drakes album but was poor or a cheapskate, he goes to download it and SOPA says "NO Y U BANNED U NO DOWNLOAD", would Bob then go out and buy the CD? Or get it from iTunes? IN ALMOST EVERY INSTANCE BOB WOULD NOT.
It's more than just downloading of music, movies and games as well. Any image which has copyright, the ENTIRE site which links to it, can be SHUT DOWN. Without question or legal proceedings. So say I have a blog which has hundreds of posts and in one of them I posted a picture something (innocently) which some poorly written computer code deems is copyrighted. My blog could then be shut down completely. Not the offending post removed, but shut down.
You know sites like Tumblr, etc, which people have made GIF images for TV shows, animations, captions, etc - ALL gone. You know people who sing along to songs on Youtube, or perform covers, ALL GONE. I could go on but I'm very tired and I think by now you get the picture. Probably about 70% of the functioning internet would be blacked out and gone, it's not an avoidable thing, it's things you would come across in an everyday browsing environment even if you aren't specifically looking for copyrighted material.
If this bill passes (and working in the IT industry and looking at it from an overall perspective) it would be hell for everyone. Yes a few bigwigs in congress and CEOs of Record Labels might get what they want but for us, the PEOPLE, we would certainly not. I mean look what happened when Sony/BMG music etc started interfering in Youtube. You post a video up of you and some friends in the car talking and you see a chicken trying to beat up an antelope or something. You video it but your Camera records a song playing in the background. You can't cut off the audio because you'll not hear the squawks of the Chicken or your funny commentary. Your video can (and I know this because it's happened to me) and/or will be REMOVED and you will be told to reupload either without Audio or without the "copyrighted material". - Because every spontaneous moment in live we can sit there and go "oh right hold up before we film there are no copyrighted materials in this right? no music or pictures, references or phrases? ok...good..let's go" the moment would have gone.
I very much doubt the bill will pass though, because even if the bill "passes", it needs to be veto'd by the President and brought into written law. It could pass a million times over in Congress but if the president says no then...we'll all be fine. Knowing Obama I feel he would not pass the bill. He has shown in the to clearly want to appeal to the younger generations and I think almost everyone who is a user of the internet (so perhaps say 75% of America) and who uses it regularly and to it's full capacity (say 50% that original 75%) is against this bill.
I would imagine congress have already recieved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of letters, emails, e-petitions etc which are protesting against this bill, logistically it simply won't pass.
But it's worth a read I think..I have 600GB of downloaded movies, TV shows etc, not ashamed of it. Most of them are fairly old (eg Knight Rider original series) which you can't buy anymore (not easily at least) and the people who make it are not making money any more from it anyway, the remaining majority is made up of items which I already have (or have had and since lost) on DVD and want to have them in one easy to find location for ease of viewing on my home PC.
If these publicists and production agencies made it easy for me to transfer, episode by episode, a Season of 24 for example, from DVD to my Computer, then I wouldn't have to download them again via Torrent. Yes I could rip them from the DVD but to RIP, edit file names and process the data raw from DVDs using programs which cost ME money then I will just download it. Technically this is copyright breach because believe it or not when you buy a DVD it's not actually "yours". It allows you (and technically only you, the purchaser) to watch the film on your own device in private.
Technically lending a CD, movie or game to a friend is a copyright breach. Watching it with your family is a copyright breach, if you have several music CDs and compile them onto a CD-R to play in your car, that's copyright breach. Hell technically you can only use it on one playback device ever so you should have one copy for your computer DVD drive and one for your home cinema in the lounge...otherwise oh guess what that's a copyright breach.
There is no grey areas when it comes to this - you are either within the terms of usage license and thus in compliance with copyright or you are not and you aren't.
I think the only shows I have which I haven't bought are The Wire and Torchwood, mainly because from reading online, seeing clips here and there, the shows seem good but I want to watch them properly hence why I downloaded them. If they are very good I will go and buy one from HMV.
What people don't realise is that SOPA isn't so much about the copyright, it's about control. And money.
I was reading about some 12 year old who downloaded an Album and got caught. The people who were suing her were filing for damages of $150,000 PER TRACK I shit you not.
Now I don't now if they ended up having to pay but I was reading a family were charged about $34,000 for downloading of illegal softwares over a 3 year period. The Mum and Dad didn't know, it was the 2 teenage boys who did it. Now how are you telling me that's just; fair; morally right; it's not it's ****ed up in every sense of the term.
When a record company signs an artist for example, the people behind SOPA are saying that it's ruining their lives, when I read somewhere the AVERAGE income for someone in the Entertainment biz is $65k. I'm not talking about performing artists I'm talking about people who work at record labels, production studios, publishers, etc... even doing the advertising on the street with leaflets about shows..so that covers from $5 an hour workers to $5000 an hour CEOs...
That's like £35k which is a VERY comfortable living and could just about support Yourself, your spouse and 2 children, even if the spouse was unemployed. Even if the spouse was on a minimum wage job you would have a joint income of around £55k which is above the UK national average of around £45k. This is new car every 2 years, holiday every year, keep up with technology amounts of money to live on.
They claim it's bad for the performing artist, well it's not really. I was reading somewhere (can't remember) and apparently, for example - Lilly Allen's recording deal was only worth about £40k a year. A good salary but far from the hundreds of thousands you would expect. She made the rest of her money (as in the hundreds of thousands you imagine) by doing live performances, merchandise, and brand associations etc, that's where the money is at. If a label dropped an artist they would either publish it independently (which isn't as hard as you would think especially with iTunes and digital downloading which is what 90% of song purchases are nowadays)
Most artists are grateful you even listen to their music, they generally don't care if you download/torrent it...these Artists include Jean Grae, Wiley.
When Drakes latest album "take care" was leaked he tweeted this in response : “Listen, enjoy it, buy it if you like it…” - and J.Cole is in favour as well...these are all well known artists in their specific genres and Drake and J.Cole are commercial artists.. OH NO A COMMERCIAL ARTIST WHO ISN'T AGAINST PIRACY IT'S ALL A LIE. Well no it isn't really.
Drake's Take Care album leaked online about a week before release (I think) and it was one of the MOST downloaded torrents that week, after only a few hours the torrent had about 6000 seeds..close to 20000 peers. Oh my god you might think but no, it was a #1 album. A similar story happened with J.Cole..his leaked album went to #1. Thus proving that tormenting does not necessarily equal loss of sale.
Say Bob wanted Drakes album but was poor or a cheapskate..he goes to download it, it finishes, he listens and is happy - all done.
However if Bob wanted to download Drakes album but was poor or a cheapskate, he goes to download it and SOPA says "NO Y U BANNED U NO DOWNLOAD", would Bob then go out and buy the CD? Or get it from iTunes? IN ALMOST EVERY INSTANCE BOB WOULD NOT.
It's more than just downloading of music, movies and games as well. Any image which has copyright, the ENTIRE site which links to it, can be SHUT DOWN. Without question or legal proceedings. So say I have a blog which has hundreds of posts and in one of them I posted a picture something (innocently) which some poorly written computer code deems is copyrighted. My blog could then be shut down completely. Not the offending post removed, but shut down.
You know sites like Tumblr, etc, which people have made GIF images for TV shows, animations, captions, etc - ALL gone. You know people who sing along to songs on Youtube, or perform covers, ALL GONE. I could go on but I'm very tired and I think by now you get the picture. Probably about 70% of the functioning internet would be blacked out and gone, it's not an avoidable thing, it's things you would come across in an everyday browsing environment even if you aren't specifically looking for copyrighted material.
If this bill passes (and working in the IT industry and looking at it from an overall perspective) it would be hell for everyone. Yes a few bigwigs in congress and CEOs of Record Labels might get what they want but for us, the PEOPLE, we would certainly not. I mean look what happened when Sony/BMG music etc started interfering in Youtube. You post a video up of you and some friends in the car talking and you see a chicken trying to beat up an antelope or something. You video it but your Camera records a song playing in the background. You can't cut off the audio because you'll not hear the squawks of the Chicken or your funny commentary. Your video can (and I know this because it's happened to me) and/or will be REMOVED and you will be told to reupload either without Audio or without the "copyrighted material". - Because every spontaneous moment in live we can sit there and go "oh right hold up before we film there are no copyrighted materials in this right? no music or pictures, references or phrases? ok...good..let's go" the moment would have gone.
I very much doubt the bill will pass though, because even if the bill "passes", it needs to be veto'd by the President and brought into written law. It could pass a million times over in Congress but if the president says no then...we'll all be fine. Knowing Obama I feel he would not pass the bill. He has shown in the to clearly want to appeal to the younger generations and I think almost everyone who is a user of the internet (so perhaps say 75% of America) and who uses it regularly and to it's full capacity (say 50% that original 75%) is against this bill.
I would imagine congress have already recieved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of letters, emails, e-petitions etc which are protesting against this bill, logistically it simply won't pass.
Last edited by S14 DRIFT, .
Not bothered at all hence the bus wanker.
Your Momma on the other hand would know that I am very good at wanking while on a bus as she was showing me.
A device so a hooker can give 5 men blowjobs at the same time?
This is why I don't make up feasible counter arguments. I have done it in the Nuclear power thread and something else about shit but he didn't pay attn. to any of it.
I should get you to Clarify though Yuri, I've neither bullied him or call him Cartman!! That was someone else.
And yes you're right we should ignore him however he will continue to post. So it's sort of a catch twenty2But meeeeeemmmmm that made me piss myself kamihama!!
That's not bullying, clearly you never have been bullied (or bullied someone else) because that's not what this is. We are capable of doing research which is something you're not capable of because you just copy and paste from conspiracy websites!!
Furthermore I have neither shown my support or opposition to Monsanto so I have no idea where you're getting the idea that I support it from...probably like the rest of your ideas, up your arse.
As for ignoring reality out of us two I think you're the one who needs to get a grip. Clearly you have no idea as has already been pointed out!! Go sleep in an ants nest.
And your point is? Do I look bothered? Does it make you a better person?? No it makes you a bus wanker.
Oh my god just die already you seriously are so boring. You are like a nagging wife.
Here is exactly why I posted what I did as the first reply to this thread.
lost the will to live now bye bye.
It was pretty funny trololl
lol.............CENSORSHIP IS HERE.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG