>>7262

>US airline Continental and five people will stand trial over the 2000 Concorde crash near Paris which killed 113 people
>The plane caught fire after its tyres were punctured by a piece of metal on the runway from a Continental plane

Further proof that America, the 'Reverse Midas', fucks up everything they touch. As a result in this case, the UK has gone backward technologically again - the first time was when the ancient Romans left Britain & thus started the Dark Ages.

Just as with the 'protests' when Concorde flew to the US, supposedly because of 'engine noise concerns', it's clear American airlines have had it in for the first supersonic airliner, because it wasn't American. Even the 2nd, the Tupolev Tu-144, with it being Soviet built.

I'm just surprised the US hasn't tried to sabotage the LHC at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, because it's not in America.

>>7190

Of course not. The nips don't want any 'Gaijins' invading their private little world. Just as with the faggots on 4chan not wanting anyone who wasn't at that board's inception (especially in /a/ & /b/) encroaching on their little pissing contest ('Newfag', 'Summer /a/', 'LURK MORE', 'GTFO', etc.).

Makes you want to break their 'Rules 1 & 2' to the relevant authorities, just to scare (or better still force) moot into b&-ing those who say such things.

Well that's an useful invitation.

>>7193
haha

>>7193

made me smile

>>7190 cause we have foreign IP addresses.
That tells me that only Japanese are writing whatever on the board.

>>7193 4ch for gaijins and 2ch for nips?

And there'a also SAoVQ for people who've payed DADDY COOL the VIPPE Rand enough ;)

>>7183 Wanna be Americans...
Why they pretend to be American and write weird ass article about themselves? Some stupid people...

It would be a really cool cross-cultural idea if (a) we could actually talk with them and (b) the 4chan trolls could not. I don't know what depressed me more: the absence of authentic Japanese questions and answers or the overabundance of 4chan idiots spouting garbage as gospel.

Come now. For all you know, it's the VIPPERs whose passive uhh mutual cultural assimilation that provoked dejima's creation.

What are you guys talking about?

I'm in the UK and I can still post.

That'll teach them foreign spies.

Proof that you don't fuck with the French. They have the biggest nuclear arsenal outside of USA & Russia, and one of the most formidable armed forces in Europe - and even the Navy S.E.A.L.s are pussies compared to the Foreign Legion.

JOO DON FUKK WIT FRANCE!!!!

That's the difference between us and them. In America, this would have been deliberate!

Welcome to Oceania

Really? COME ON. Do you britfags beg to have cameras shoved up your ass or what?

Nope, no police state going on here. We're just progressive and more cultured hurr hurr huuuur.

>Test umpire Dickie Bird

lol

>>7128

>What if it is something religious like a turban?

Then they probably wouldn't be in a pub?

>>7172
What if they need to blow it up? WHAT THEN?

People aren't wearing enough hats.

>>7174
Hatten är din
Hatt-baby

>>7126

Ey Oop! What about t'pubs on Ilkley Moor?! Y'can't go there baht'at! When yer all 'ot & mathered after comin' 'ome from t'mill, y'need an ale or three in t'pub! An' 'oo gives a bugger about hats indoors?! Eeee, it t'were grand when I were a lad (cue Hovis advert music): We used to have to get up at six o'clock in t'morning, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t'mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt!

And if y'try an' tell t'young people today about that, they won't believe yer!

fiddles about inside trousers

Stop bloody squirmin' about will yer?! Sodding ferret!

The strange thing is, that senior cops seem to have authority to change the rules present in a private establishment.

What the hell? UK really seems to be in a bad way.

>>7200
Nothing to see here. Move along.

Why?

>>7228
Because they think the pin-prick of mercury in CFLs will kill them.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

According to the article, many reasons:

• available CFLs are not bright enough
• some members have found that low energy bulbs seem to increase migraine attacks.
• many people prefer the warmer glow
• color difference between the two types of bulbs
• can't use dimmers with a CFL
• buzzing noise
• needs special handling if it breaks
• etc.

In my own experience I have only noticed one thing: some brands annoyingly blink like strobes. Either bad quality control, or some people don't notice it (I do.) Probably the reason behind those headaches some have.

Either way, this will only be a transition to solid state lighting. LED and other lighting technologies are being considered to replace CFLs. Give it a few more years (I predict less than 10) and it will be the next most viable standard of lighting.

lol, I broke and cut my finger on a CFL a few months ago.

I seem to be fine.

Also I was lazy so I just threw it in the trash.

>>7234

>I broke and cut my finger on a CFL a few months ago

You broke and cut your finger? Or you broke the CFL thereby cutting your finger? I can't imagine how you could have managed to break your finger from a fragile device like a CFL, but hey, before I wave the Grammar Nazi flag I'll concede that stranger things have happened.

>many people prefer the warmer glow

Most of the new lights I've seen come with thick interior coatings ("paint" if you will) that cause the output light to resemble the warm glow you're referring to. And since the brightness is already accounted for when you buy one of these ("as bright as a 100-watt light bulb!"), I think that'd be the end of it.

I notice that flicker on CFL lights. It reminds me of the same kind of flicker on low refresh rate CRT monitors.

>>7239
Yeah, That's the only problem I've had with them, After a couple years they start to buzz and flicker, Though I bought all the ones I have back when they first started coming out.

it's not even that i'm worried about. it's more along the lines of how will they monitor online use? will it be by how long the actual modem is plugged into the cable line or will it be everytime i open a browser? does that mean I'm going to be charged even though im not actually surfing the web and im playing a game that requires an internet connection? My worry isn't because im downloading like 1 gb of music a day, it's more geared towards online play and how they will implement an overage charge on something like that

>>7203
Is this a serious question? Fuck it, I'll bite even if this is a troll: "The system is aimed at gaining additional revenue from "5% of subscribers who utilize over half of the total network bandwidth." "bandwidth", as in how many Kbps upstream and how many Kbps downstream you're using at any given time multiplied by duration for which that lasts.

Examples:

• the guy who downloads data at a short-lived rate of 800 Kbps for 20 seconds each week is not in trouble
• the guy who downloads data at a solid rate of 15 Kbps for 24 hours in one week is not in trouble
• the guy who downloads data at a solid rate of 15 Kbps for 96 hours in one week every week might be on their monitoring list (they're not stupid, they know about P2P applications perfectly well)
• the guy who downloads data at a solid rate of 400 Kbps for 96 hours in one week every week of the month every month of the year is going to find a letter in his mailbox informing him "$80 or no more cable" shortly.

>>7206
Dammit, hit "Submit" before addressing your concern in my conclusion:

Unless the gaming you do is highly bandwidth-intensive, you have nothing to worry about. And most online gaming I'm familiar with isn't bandwidth-intensive. Ask yourself "Why would it be?" To repeat, the issue is not with time spent online but with the amount of the "pipeage" that you are occupying.

>>7207

ahh ok. see, I always had the assumption that online games are usually bandwidth-intensive applications, as it needs to send information constantly to the server in order to update information. Thanks for clearing that mess up

>>7208
They do send and receive information, but by no means do they send and receive what we today would call "a lot" of information. The requirement for high-speed Internet for modern computer gaming was born entirely out of a need to address the issue of session latency, i.e. gamers have never (traditionally) needed hi-speed connections for the size of the data they're exchanging but rather for the immediacy with which that data can be exchanged, facilitating a more dynamic gameplay experience. In plain simple English, "no lag."

I just did a search on Google to get some concrete numbers for us; I read in one discussion (from back in 2005) that World of Warcraft was said to consume 20 MB per hour; despite frequent agreement that FPSes require more bandwidth than MMORPGS, someone in the same discussion reported that his Counterstrike bandwidth never exceeded 20 MB per hour either.

Then on this one CS website, http://www.cstrike-planet.com/tutorial/1 , I found that the amount of bandwidth required to host a small CS server can be achieved with as little as 400 Kbps UL. It goes on to say that the average UL bandwidth you would need to give each player (i.e. how much they will need for lagless DL bandwidth) is around 6 KB per second. Peanuts. (Also re-verifying the approximate 20 MB per hour claim.) Yes, it was written in 2005, but I don't think much has changed since then.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

http://vivalacuba.blogspot.com/2008/06/republic-of-cuba.html

>>7211

yes, it did help alot. Thanks again for all the info. that certainly dispelled alot of the worries that initially came with the new overage system.

>>7202

>cable provider: Oh so we're the criminals? Gotcha. When we refuse to provide you with a service because you're hogging a disproportionate share of the resources to download illegal content, that makes us the criminals. Thanks for the newsflash.

My reply would be along the lines of "Since when is watching a lot of porn illegal?"

>>7217
Their response in court:

"Firstly, that the law does not concern itself with whether or not the defense has watched the pornography it has downloaded; rather, whether or not it was knowingly downloaded by the defense. We will show the court today that the defense did, in fact, conduct illegal downloads with the intent to do so.

Secondly, that while the defense's point is well-taken, and that in fact it is not a crime in this country to download all manner of pornographic content, the content legally permitted is rather limited:

• Downloading illegal pornography is itself illegal. (e.g. child pornography)
• Downloading legal pornography with the intent to download illegal pornography is illegal (e.g. downloading adult pornography under the pretense that it is child pornography).
• Downloading legal, commercialized pornography without permission from the copyright holder is illegal, whether the defense has paid for it previously or afterward, unless the defense is downloading the commercial pornography as per his or her purchase (i.e. digitally-distributed commercial goods).

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

7242, I forgot to say two things since I was getting so tl;dr

First, to >>7217 , I wanted to point out that I'm not suggesting you download pornography with illegal content in it. I am suggesting that you do (or have at least once in your time with your current hi-speed internet provider) download commercial pornography without paying for it.

Second, to >>7213 , hey you're welcome! Even if I'm wordy as fuck, I'm glad I was able to help.