the vj
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
A few months ago I deleted and started to reject all the people I knew from high school in my Facebook, well, the ones that after almost 20 years came to me to add me as a friend but they were the ones that make my life a living hell and used me and took advantaged and then they turned their back on me.
You know what... get lost!
You know what... get lost!
ten-oak-druid
Apr 9, 04:46 AM
The delusion is this thread is hilarious. I'm seeing little casual gamers saying
LOL
You're such a big power gamer yourself...
LOL
You're such a big power gamer yourself...
OllyW
Apr 21, 07:06 AM
I struggle with the LTE angle mainly due to the fact in the UK we haven't even got visual voicemail working on the iPhone 4
Speak for yourself, it works on mine. :p
Speak for yourself, it works on mine. :p
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
.Andy
Apr 26, 05:41 PM
I could murder some toast.
http://jesustoasters.com/
http://jesustoasters.com/
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 02:25 PM
What's an assertation?
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
Wilbah
May 5, 08:59 PM
I challenge you to walk down the west side, anywhere... but take 9th avenue from say... the 57th St to the mid 30's. Just get in a cab. Make a phone call in regular traffic. I'd be willing to wager that at least 75% of the time you drop a call, once, if not twice during that trip. It happens to me nearly every day.
i really don't understand all the people in NYC who have dropped calls multiple times a day.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
i really don't understand all the people in NYC who have dropped calls multiple times a day.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE=AppliedVisual;2994702]
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).
I guess so... Heh. I guess I should have gave it more than a quick glance (did I even look at the array declaration?) before commenting. Oh, well...
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).
I guess so... Heh. I guess I should have gave it more than a quick glance (did I even look at the array declaration?) before commenting. Oh, well...
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:54 PM
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows. For those who may not have a large or well organized music library, using the defaults may be fine. However, I had spent years building my library, ripping CDs and vinyl records, editing tags. All file names were exactly as I needed them and I had them well organized, much better than iTunes organizes them. For me (and for those who have a very specific music file organization), leaving those boxes unchecked gives us all the advantages of using iTunes, plus the advantages of well-organized music files.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows. For those who may not have a large or well organized music library, using the defaults may be fine. However, I had spent years building my library, ripping CDs and vinyl records, editing tags. All file names were exactly as I needed them and I had them well organized, much better than iTunes organizes them. For me (and for those who have a very specific music file organization), leaving those boxes unchecked gives us all the advantages of using iTunes, plus the advantages of well-organized music files.
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 10:08 PM
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
OMG, you have a VCR still?! What's it like?
teehee.
Only kidding.
Still, I don't think it's legal to videotape TV broadcasts of any form. That's why you have to pay for it on iTunes. If you want to watch it at your liesure, you have to pay for that liesure. Whether that means finding (and putting up with) a VCR and taping it (illegally) or footing the $6 for the last 3 episodes of Lost it's the price someone has to pay.
-Clive
OMG, you have a VCR still?! What's it like?
teehee.
Only kidding.
Still, I don't think it's legal to videotape TV broadcasts of any form. That's why you have to pay for it on iTunes. If you want to watch it at your liesure, you have to pay for that liesure. Whether that means finding (and putting up with) a VCR and taping it (illegally) or footing the $6 for the last 3 episodes of Lost it's the price someone has to pay.
-Clive
CIA
Apr 13, 01:12 AM
Currently I work as a producer for the NBA. If the face recognition works, that could be huge for what I do. We have to go through months and months of games pulling highlights of individual players. Currently we edit using Final Cut Pro systems. If the new system can accurately analyze faces and allow me to do a search for certain players, well, that would be friggin' awesome. I hope it works.
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what the hell the face recognition feature would be used for. That makes sense, sports. Sadly we shoot a ton of skiing and snowboarding, so it probably won't work well for us since everyone is wearing hats/helmets and goggles.
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what the hell the face recognition feature would be used for. That makes sense, sports. Sadly we shoot a ton of skiing and snowboarding, so it probably won't work well for us since everyone is wearing hats/helmets and goggles.
desdomg
Mar 21, 02:52 AM
I still say **** it and download mp3s - the music catalogue on iTMS is awful anyway. It may be "illegal" but there are lots of illegal things that most people do anyway and the world hasn't come to a stop. In the UK a few years back we had the Tory government introduce a new tax called the Poll Tax. Its introduction caused mass riots and non payment. Eventually the government had no choice but to change the law. We live in a democracy for crying out loud. The way half of you are arguing with your "its illegal" ******** sounds like we live in a corporate state. The music industry needs to be forced to introduce price competition - not force the consumer to pay rediculous prices for a song. $1 is crazy pricing. Let the market decide.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 05:04 PM
We're on the same sheet of music, Java...
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:10 PM
If this is all iTV is going to offer for $249 then forget it.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 11:54 PM
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
I hear you ... this story unfolding is so sad. That whole area of such a small country could virtually end up being uninhabited ... nobody will want to live anywhere near there.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
I hear you ... this story unfolding is so sad. That whole area of such a small country could virtually end up being uninhabited ... nobody will want to live anywhere near there.
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:46 AM
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
Mis dos partes de corazón/Two
partes del corazón muy
CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
BigDukeSix
Apr 24, 06:21 PM
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
de las partes del Corazón
Reacent Post
Rocketman
Sep 26, 10:42 AM
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4160
anandtech.com did a speed test too. I don't have the link.
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4160
anandtech.com did a speed test too. I don't have the link.
mjstew33
Jul 12, 01:23 AM
Or maybe instead of a Mac pro mini, it might be a Mac mini Extreme? :cool:
Groovey
Aug 29, 05:12 PM
From Greenpeace.org
It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." said Kruszewska.
And this is something I gotta agree with. I don't believe that people in Greenpeace are sitting around doing nothing and just making things up, such as ranking corporations blindly with no research data at all. In my opinion realizing such issues doesn't make anything worse, just makes it possible for things to get even better. Sounds probably quite optimistic, yes, but gotta keep the spirits up. I also have bought all my Apple-stuff in the belief that they are somewhat more eco-friendly too. They make excellent computers, and soon to be even more perfect! :D
It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." said Kruszewska.
And this is something I gotta agree with. I don't believe that people in Greenpeace are sitting around doing nothing and just making things up, such as ranking corporations blindly with no research data at all. In my opinion realizing such issues doesn't make anything worse, just makes it possible for things to get even better. Sounds probably quite optimistic, yes, but gotta keep the spirits up. I also have bought all my Apple-stuff in the belief that they are somewhat more eco-friendly too. They make excellent computers, and soon to be even more perfect! :D
spicyapple
Sep 26, 12:55 AM
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 03:25 PM
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:46 AM
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
0 comments:
Post a Comment