justin0469

wiener out of

67,581 kb

Even if Google does have a huge backing...who cares? :???: I don't care who got where how, I just want to take advantage of the best product regardless of how it came to be the best.

I've always insisted Chrome was faster than Firefox for the most part.

No, not the Harley kind.

daaamn it. if only 1 month earlier!

I remember there being some stuff goin around about that ^ If that isn't it, the barracks on NAS North Island (Coronado Island, off the coast of San Diego) look just like that, and I lived in them

But not for iPhone! Droid and other Android based phones can enjoy though! Ah, the possibilities with an open source platform http://www.pcworld.com/article/183342/porn_app_store_lands_on_android_phones.html

Human rights groups: No in-game war crimes by Don Reisinger Here's one that will undoubtedly send some gamers into a craze. A study from two Swiss human rights organizations, Trial and Pro Juventute, has found that some video games depict war and battle actions that in real life would violate international human rights laws. The study attempted to determine if the acts gamers engage in while they play violent titles would "lead to violations of rules of international law, in particular International Humanitarian Law (IHL), basic norms of International Human Rights Law (IHRL), or International Criminal Law (ICL)." To find out, Trial and Pro Juventute picked up 20 games, including Call of Duty 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Far Cry 2, and others. It had "young gamers" play the games as three attorneys watched to find actions in games that in real life would violate rules and regulations that govern armed conflict. The organizations said the study is not intended to "prohibit the games, to make them less violent or to turn them into IHL or IHRL training tools." Instead, the groups want to work with developers to ensure that in the future, their games observe real-life human-rights laws. After evaluating the 20 games, the group found that in many cases, "shooter" games failed to take into consideration international humanitarian law. ( it's a game! the point is to be someplace and someone else regardless of reality) "The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is nevertheless astonishing: civilians or protected objects such as churches or mosques can be attacked with impunity, in scenes portraying interrogations it is possible to torture, degrade or treat the prisoner inhumanely without being sanctioned for it and extrajudicial executions are simulated," the groups wrote in a statement. "At least a few games punish the killing of civilians or reward strategies that aim to prevent excessive damage." Individual game evaluations were just as biting. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had one of the more lengthy violation sections. According to the group, the game violates several human-rights laws by allowing games to "attack civilian buildings with no limits in order to get rid of all the enemies present in the town who are on roof tops, open areas of the town, squares featuring statues, etc. Under IHL, the fact that combatants/fighters are present in a town does not make the entire town a military objective." The group also disliked the beating of the game's villain, Al-Asad. It asserted that the "beating of Al-Asad amounts to torture or at least inhuman treatment, which are prohibited in any context, under any circumstances, whether in peace time or during armed conflict situations. Killing him amounts to an extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary execution as it falls outside the context of any legal framework." Similar evaluations were given on the other games the groups evaluated. In the end, Trial and Pro Juventute delivered recommendations. The groups says it wants developers to make it clear to gamers that in any circumstance, human-rights violations cannot be allowed, even in a game setting. It also requested that, going forward, developers adhere to international human rights laws when they depict war or battle in a game. "It is regrettable that game producers hardly ever use this possibility to creatively incorporate the rules of international law or even representatives of such rules as specific elements in the course of the game," the groups wrote in a statement. "Pro Juventute and Trial call upon the producers of computer and video games to use their strong creativity and innovation for this purpose. It would mean a wasted opportunity if the virtual space transmitted the illusion of impunity for unlimited violence in armed conflicts." The group also said that it chose video games, rather than film, because of the former's "interactive" nature. Now it's your turn. Should games depict violence that would be illegal in real life? Do human rights laws extend to video games? Let us know in the comments below. Seriously???

IBM staffer posts pics on Facebook, loses benefits by Chris Matyszczyk Insurance companies want us to be healthy. Really, they do. They have our interests at heart, and they defend those interests with an unusual zeal. This is why I am wondering which details might be missing from the tale of Natalie Blanchard. According to the Associated Press, Blanchard, a 29-year-old IBM employee from Bromont, Quebec, was suffering from depression and took time away from work, relying on sick-leave benefits from her insurer, Manulife Financial. The monthly payments were suddenly halted. When she called Manulife to ask why, she says she was told that it had espied photos on her Facebook page that showed her cheerful. Ergo, the argument allegedly went, she was able to work. Which led to the second ergo: no more payments. The pictures, about which I am sure you are already wondering, were of her at a show featuring those tensing torsos, the Chippendales, as well as at a birthday party and on a beach holiday. Depression is a nasty business. Cures are not exactly logical. And Blanchard says she went on three trips, each of a four-day duration, after consulting with her psychiatrist. Manulife, while confirming (footage from Sky News embedded here) that it does use social-networking sites to, well, check up on its customers, also said, "We would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on Web sites such as Facebook." Perhaps you, too, have some questions. What sort of a life is it when you spend your days trawling social-networking sites to sniff around your customers' personal existence? How is it that Manulife observed Blanchard's photos? Did she leave her Facebook page entirely open, or could it be that she had her insurance agent as one of her Facebook friends? Was she, indeed, already under suspicion before the Facebook trawling began? December 8, this case will be heard in the Quebec Superior Court. Surely, we will learn a little more about Natalie Blanchard and a little more about Manulife. Perhaps Facebook could provide a live feed from the proceedings?

Man marries video game character by Chris Matyszczyk As you begin to contemplate your Thanksgiving meal, your family gathered around you, your loved ones embracing you, please be thankful you are not Sal9000. Sal appears to be a man with very idiosyncratic needs, which he has attempted to satiate by marrying his favorite video game character. Perhaps you think I have finally lost my last marble. However, please examine this footage. Courtesy of the radical realists at BoingBoing, this video shows that Sal married Nene Anegasaki, a character in the Nintendo DS game, Love Plus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsikPswAYUM These unique nuptials were apparently broadcast on the Japanese video sharing site, Nico Nouga Nouga, a place where many strange things occur for, no doubt, extremely sound psychological reasons. I don't wish to so much as broach the topic of marital consummation. However, I can tell you that attending the wedding, which was held, naturally, at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, were the bride's virtual video game girlfriend, a live audience and, yes, a real religious priest. I cannot find record of where the happy couple might be honeymooning, but I have an indelible fear that it might be in a very small, dark apartment somewhere in Tokyo. I trust they will have a large and healthy family.

of pubic hair

Paralyzed Man Was Awake for 23 Years, Not in Vegetative State Belgian Researcher Proves a Paralyzed Man Was Fully Conscious With Brain Scan By LAUREN COX ABC News Medical Unit Nov. 24, 2009 A paralyzed Belgian man who spent the past 23 years incorrectly diagnosed as being in a vegetative state, was fully conscious and could hear everything around him the entire time. Rom Houben was believed to be in a coma for 23 years, but was in fact paralyzed. The man, Rom Houbens, can finally communicate, thanks to a neurologist's persistent research. Doctors had assumed the 1983 car crash that paralyzed Houbens, now 46, had also put him in a vegetative state -- awake but not conscious of his surroundings. Houbens, a one-time engineering student and martial arts enthusiast was trapped in his own world. That is, until Dr. Steven Laureys of the University of Liege, using modern brain scanning technology unavailable in the 1980s, saw that Houbens' brain lit up with near-normal functioning when he was asked a question. Houbens had heard the doctors, nurses and family speaking in his room for decades. "I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with me -- it was my second birth," Houbens told the German magazine Der Spiegel, communicating via special keyboard. Laureys discovered Houbens' state in a Belgian hospital three years ago, but the case has only just come to light after Laureys published a study in the journal, BMC Neurology earlier this year. He argued that new imaging technology will show that many more people like Houbens, believed in a vegetative state are actually misdiagnosed. According to ABC News senior health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser, misdiagnosis can happen fairly easily in the beginning of treatment. There's two more pages to the story: http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/MindMoodNews/doctors-find-vegetative-paralyzed-man-awake-23-years/story?id=9159555 That's insane. I can't imagine the fear and frustration laying there for 23 years, hearing everything, but unable to respond or say anything or ask for help.

smashweights seems a little closer to the truth. sad, but true. well, minus the masturbation booths

Verizon's 4G network will be GSM, then it will work with the iPhone. They've talked alot about when it will be available, most recently saying sometime in 2010, which happens to coincide with the speculated iPhone contract end... Verizon has already been testing their 4G network here in little ol' Columbus. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-10166622-78.html

I guess I haven't seen one in person but it doesn't seem like anything that special. While I HATE Apple's restrictions and limitations to software, I have to admit they have such a headstart on the competition (Droid isn't the first device labeled "iPhone killer" and how much of those are you aware of now? 0) in the way of apps, that I'm not sure anyone can catch up. I've read stories of developers have already dropped their Droid development teams and are just sticking to iPhone....

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/11/atts_iphone_str.html;jsessionid=1XP1ETBD0MCCHQE1GHPSKHWATMY32JVN Just speculation but God knows everyone is hoping! AT&T's iPhone Stranglehold Ending June 2010? Posted by Eric Zeman, Nov 23, 2009 01:32 PM Neither AT&T (NYSE: T) nor Apple has ever admitted how long the exclusive sales arrangement is for the iPhone. Despite their silence, at least one person strongly believes the deal will end in June 2010, which means the iPhone will then become available via more carriers in the U.S. Even though the iPhone has been a success story in the U.S., it could have been even more successful if AT&T weren't the only network operator selling the device. Since June 29, 2007, if U.S. customers wanted an iPhone, they had to purchase one with an AT&T contract. Brave users many have purchased their iPhones outright and hacked them to work on other GSM networks, but all the "legit" iPhones are still locked to AT&T. Since the iPhone was first announced, the public has wondered how long the exclusivity deal between Apple and AT&T is. Why? Because people want to be able to use the iPhone on networks other than AT&T's. According to Broadpoint AmTech's analyst Brian Marshall, they'll be able to starting in June 2010. Marshall was recently interviewed on Bloomberg TV, and mentioned some interesting points. CNN's BrainStormTech blog reports that Marshall said: The contract that gives AT&T (T) exclusive access in the U.S. to Apple's (AAPL) iPhone expires in June 2010. Apple is now getting a $450 subsidy from AT&T for each iPhone it sells; after June, that subsidy will be reduced to $300 for all carriers, domestic and international. The 4% of AT&T subscribers who use the iPhone consume roughly 40% of the network's bandwidth. Interesting stuff, but many of the comments under the BrainStormTech post claim that Marshall doesn't know what he is talking about. The comments openly dispute the facts and say that Marshall is flat-out wrong. I can't say if he is or if he isn't. "Three years" has always been the guess that analysts and the media keep returning to on the subject of iPhone exclusivity, so his basic premise makes sense to me. What's most interesting is to note that the iPhone's availability in France recently expanded beyond just a single carrier -- and sales shot way up. With sales taking a dramatic turn like, Apple is surely counting down the days to when it is no longer beholden to AT&T. If you want to see Marshall's spot on Bloomberg TV, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imFfITYWiOE

i'd agree with that

btw, if you try to log into that account you get rick rolled. courtesy of casper, im sure

i cant

email address that's good for 10 minutes. good for registering for BS stuff so you dont get spammed! http://10minutemail.com/10MinuteMail/