Parabola

From a legal point of view: If it is a consumer version: you are allowed to have it installed on as many computers as you want, but only one at a time. If it is an OEM version: you are only allowed to have it installed on one specific computer - meaning if you change your motherboard it counts as a different computer and you must not install it again.

Lupo. Expect insurance to be very high if you're going to be the policyholder just after you've passed. It is also highly dependent on where you live - for example just after I passed my test a few years ago it was ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã1250 for me to be the policyholder on a 1.8l Volvo saloon in a quiet area, but it was ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã2500 for my friend to be the policyholder on a 1.1l Fiesta in a big city.

Sorry, that would mean there would need to be 667 days in a year. Like I said before, it is approximately 16,427,104 people, assuming an even distribution.

So are you saying that there are 298 days of the year on which no one is born? For what you said to be true there would be. Population of the world = ~6,000,000,000 If everyone shares their birthday with 90,000,000 people... 6,000,000,000 / 90,000,000 = 66.6' There are only 67 possible birthdays in a year 67 days of the year on which someone can be born for your 'fact' to be true Ignoring trends in seasonal births (which could not account for your 90,000,000 sharing), you share your birthday with approximately 16,427,104 people (6,000,000,000 / 365.25). It would have made sense (in a pedantic way) had you left it at 900,000,000 since ~900,000,000 in the world have their birthdays on a Monday, for example.

How about because there's frequent hopping between legal and illegal.

Day of the week? I was all set to post my refutation but then I realised.

Ahh yes, comparing a band to a racist organisation. Great analogy.

Yet which has everyone heard of? Which has more users? What does this say about the proposed model of business?

I believe it is either less addictive than morphine or has fewer side effects. It is also used to get rid of the nausea associated with chemotherapy. Darkmage099 - I'm not going to argue with someone who resorts to namecalling. Besides, since you've missed the point so many times I don't think I'll get anywhere.

Not true. Plenty of governments put laws in place to keep them in power which have nothing to do with the betterment of the society. Cases in point = Iraq, China. Irrelevant. You've said to get out of the country twice by this point. Not when the government oppresses the people and no one gets to vote. Cases in point = Iraq, China. Blindly obeying the law regardless of its content is as bad as not questioning it. What if the law said that a woman should be beaten if she isn't wearing a veil in public? Would you obey that? 3 times. Once again, puerile argument. Irrelevant. You're just putting across arguments that show you know little about life. For example: That is just a childish attitude and you've been shown it is wrong by several people other than me. Contrary to popular belief on this forum, internet teenagers don't always know everything.

I love how people say "if you don't like it, get out of the country" when obviously no thought has gone towards how difficult, impractical and stupid such a suggestion is. Getting out of the country means: You need a massive amount of capital to move all your belongings. You leave behind all your family and friends. You leave behind your job. In many cases you have to learn a new language. You have to find a place of residence in the new country. You have to get permission to live in the new country. Saying "get out of the country" is a stupid and puerile suggestion, and I've not once seen it mentioned by someone who isn't a teenager.

Bye bye popularity.

Way to totally miss the point. I even explained it for you yet you still managed to miss it. Laws are not morality and China was an example of laws that are wrong. When I decided to be a citizen/resident of the USA? I don't remember that, considering I've lived in England all my life. Maybe we folks over the pond don't have such blind obedience and can think for ourselves. At least compared to people like you who have demonstrated themselves to be unquestioning of authority. There used to be laws against homosexuality. There used to be laws against blasphemy. There ARE currently laws against democracy in some places. Laws are not always for the betterment of society. Laws are not infallible.

The law in China says people get sent to prison for questioning the government. It says that search engines have to censor keywords such as "democracy", "Tiannamen Square" and so on. Laws can be BS. Laws are not morality. Anyone who bases their judgements of right and wrong solely on the law and never questions it clearly has limited mental faculties.

The only people who say things like the above are the ignorant idiots who have believed all the anti-drug propaganda they've heard without engaging their brains and questioning any of it.

One of my friends has it. I had never grinned so much whilst playing a game ever. It is the perfect party game. I love how serious the 'form baton' instructions are, I love how silly yet intuitive the microgames are but most of all I love how they are just such surprises. It is indeed a must have if you've got a Wii.

What a steaming pile of horse manure.

As I said before - the fastest they can move is 15 feet per minute (0.17 miles per hour). That precludes both swinging and 'leaping'. Can you substantiate any of your claims? Why are you so intent on believing this internet 'fact' that is not only contrary to common sense but something you evidently know nothing about? Here are some other mammals that obviously can't jump: Manatees Blue whale Ever seen a manatee jump or 'leap'?

Most criminals don't commit crime because they don't know how to live otherwise - they commit crime because it is easier than doing things the honest way. They do it because they want more than their dues. Rehabilitation won't solve that.

It wasn't because jails were full. One of my ex-teachers got caught doing that and all he got was an ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã850 fine. That sort of sentence occurs all the time.

Good idea. I must stress it would only be worth removing it if advertising posts were going to be banned. Asking for standards to be set to allow certain sites to be advertised wouldn't work, it would just ask too much of moderators who would have to use their discretion and it would result in a million user complaints because their site wasn't deemed good enough. Some people might have good sites that are worth seeing, but the problem is EVERYONE thinks their site is good and worth seeing.

If the correlation between a person's hairstyle and other people's inability to open up to them was as strong as that of raped women not being able to open up to unfamiliar men then I'm sure that people with such hairstyles would suffer discrimination too. However, since the former is a small minority whereas the latter is the vast majority, I don't think it will be happening too soon.

I've said from my first post - it is prejudiced discrimination, it is sexist. I didn't say there should be rules against male rape counsellors, I said that it is understandable when they are not employed because the majority of their patients wouldn't be able to trust them based on their gender alone.

It's got nothing to do with his competency. It is purely to do with the women who have just been raped and are going to be at the point in their lives where they are least likely to be able to trust/open up to a man.

No, I am saying it is understandable if a man is denied such a job based on his gender alone. I said in certain circumstances that sexism is necessary - there might just happen to be a clinic where the women don't mind working with a man. There might not be a rule against it in theory but there may well be one in practice.