23 January 1973 – The US announces an end to its involvement in the Vietnam War 19 January 1990 - South African police clash with demonstrators against a ...
Why has "BBC News" disabled comments on the "Lord Janner pedophilia"
video..Too painful for the establishment to see the reflection of it's
hypocrisy and corruption in the real eyes of those who care,not the
gullible flag wavers who "never question" Government Immorality and
corruption.
Did You Know Bono Is the iPhone "Artists" Icon? - The Graham Norton Show on BBC America
Graham Norton talks to U2 about Apple giving their new album to everyone for free on iTunes, and learns that Bono's been on your iPhone for longer than you ...
I'M BAFFLED THE SOME PEOPLE ARE WHINING ABOUT GETTING A FREE SONG. THERE'S
FAR WORSE THINGS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD. JUST BLOODY DELETE IT IF YOU DONT
WANT IT!!
So U2 thought that if they forced their new album onto people by the way of
asking Apple if they could get it downloaded onto everyone's iDevice, that
it would have went over like Christmas. Never mind that not everyone likes
U2, but they figured that even the people that don't like U2 would be
grateful. Have the members of U2 lost their minds, what made them think
that if their albums weren't selling that great in the first place, that
this would be the perfect solution for their slumping album sales. "Some
people don't believe in father Christmas", no Bono, some people don't want
to be forced into taking something they wouldn't buy in the first place.
These guys have the biggest egos of anyone in the world.
I can see someone doesn't understand sarcasm when they see it. Yes yes your comment is about U2. Youtube is about U2. NATO is all about U2. And apparently you didn't even watch the video. It's all about Bono's gigantic ego. Oh I just wanted everyone to have our latest album, so I went to Apple and told them to give it to everyone. My names Santa, and some people just didn't like my gift! Yeah Bono's gigantic ego!
+Prence I'm glad that you admit this video is in fact a U2 video. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the world is about U2 or revolved around U2 and what do you mean 'Bono's gigantic ego'?
Yes yes I know, we all know. This video was all about U2 and it didn't contain nothing but U2. In fact, the world is about U2, it revolves about U2 and Bono's gigantic ego! I get it.
I don't want to have any argument, I'm just saying, for example, imagine someone was credited the author of a book (Graham Norton) but the majority of the content and writing within the book came from another writer (U2), who truly wrote the book, the man who was credited with the publication or the person who made most of the content of the book? Graham is just an interviewer, his show isn't about him, it's about his guests. The point of interviewing someone is to make them the subject of attention, not yourself. So I revoke any apologies I made, and I state that this IS a U2 video.
Oh so now you want to have a semantic argument. It is a U2 video but it's not one, though it is pretty much one since they're in it. But it's not really because it's a Graham Norton Show video. But it's still a U2 video because they are in it even though it's not really not a U2 video.
+Prence I never said it was a U2 video, I said it 'pretty much is a U2 video' as the whole video is focused on U2 and the majority of the video is of U2.You get my point, so I don't see why you continue to argue over a trivial matter.Seems like you just want something to complain about...
It's not a U2 video. It's a video with U2 in it. It's not that hard to know the difference. Unless you want everyone to believe that any video that has U2 in it is a U2 video.
+Prence Apple didn't pay them for pushing their music into your user base, apple paid them for the exclusive rights to their new album which apple then put onto the user base. All U2 did was make their album exclusive for itunes for around 2 months. And I'm pretty sure Bono didn't go around saying "You better put this onto everyones phone, and I mean those who don't like U2 too!"... And he 'forced' you to remove it from your music collection? He 'forced' you to just swipe left and press the delete button?! Holy God this man is a criminal and should be arrested.You're making a big deal out of nothing...Just another reason for people to hate on U2.
+Prence He didn't force it onto your device, and stop using the word 'force', you make U2 out to be a criminal or something. All they did was give you the album on your icloud which you could freely choose to not download and even delete if you didn't like it. All it takes is one swipe...
No they weren't worried about that. Just like they weren't worried about forcing it onto people that might not like U2. And yes he did force it onto people. "They still sell massive amounts", thats what happens when most of the world has bad taste in music. For example, just look how many people like Justin Beiber.
+PrenceYou lose absolutely nothing and gain a few songs to your collection. You don't lose memory, you don't lose money, and you don't lose time (if you leave it alone). A couch has nothing to do with music in this circumstance Sherlock. The music isn't 'broken' in a physical sense, and it isn't taking up physical space in someone's front yard.The music can be deleted very easily, and it can be kept just as easily if a friend wants to hear some U2 (if they don't already have iTunes or something).Like I said, bitching about free music. There is no justification, just a whiny teenager finding things to complain about in his boring life.
Actually, it was a gift, all I had to do is download it. As far as U2 and Apple was concerned, this was a gift. Meaning it belonged to me if I cared to download it.You don't get it. They gave it to everyone, meaning all 500 million people got it listed as it belonging to them. Whether it was on your computer or not means nothing. It was a gift which you didn't have to pay for. It was given to me and many others. And you are right. I didn't get anything, because I didn't want it. If I had wanted it, then I could have gotten it.
I thought is was a pretty nice thing to do. If you don't like the album you can delete it, if you do like the album you can keep it. Its not like they force you to keep the album or force you to pay for it without asking. I mean its FREE, you are paying nothing for it.
Well no, one of the biggest misunderstandings about this whole thing has been that the album supposedly downloaded onto your iPhone. That's not true. What actually happened was that it was added to your iCloud tracks for free and you had the option to download it if you wanted it. However, most people have their iCloud tracks set to display by default on their iPhones so a lot of people thought it had downloaded when really they were just seeing an option to download. I won't give an opinion on whether U2 have big egos or not but the whole controversy over this thing was based pretty much on nothing but the media picking up on some tweets and creating an echo chamber.
Lalit Modi BBC interview claims Indian Cricket is hand in glove with Organized Crime
Bad Journalism 1: The BBC's Shark Jump
Part 1 of my new spin-off series. *UPDATE* As of this video, the BBC has removed the quoted stat WITHOUT issuing a retraction. Archive: ...
This bullshit assertion is also found on websites like this:
//www.apc.org/en/projects/mdg3-take-back-tech-end-violence-against-women
Where it is being used as a JUSTIFICATION for sweeping draconian
legislation.
+dangerousanalysis Also wondering about the strange phrasing: "partners or former male partners". The way it's worded makes it sound like only male exes can harass, etc. but that female (lesbian) current partners can be culprits. I doubt that's what they meant to communicate but in that case it's oddly sloppy for the second declaration of the problem statement.
+dangerousanalysis Additionally there seems to be some sort of Chinese Whispering going on in that source: "The UN estimates that 95% of aggressive behaviour, harassment, abusive language and denigrating images in online spaces are aimed at women and come from partners or former male partners"Where'd the second clause come from?
" According to research from Pew Hispanic Center, 65% of young internet
users have been suffered online harassment, and young women aged 18-24 are
particularly vulnerable as they experience certain severe types of
harassment at disproportionately high levels." They changed the section I
quoted to that, quietly without an update. god I love professional
journalism.
+dangerousanalysis It would very much seem that way. Between you and Thorium calling them out on the daily, there may yet be hope if you can reach enough people to get them to stop these unethical shenanigans.
What's the margin of error on that chart you show at the end? In none of
those categories do men have it worse by more than a few percent. Is it
possible that that is within the margin of error?
thats a load of bullshit. music artists will never get as good record sales
again as the time before downloads and the same goes for movies. why dyou
think hmv went into administration? and youre just contradicting yourself
and proving me right. if everyone did it itd be screwed. but that doesnt
mean that if some did it, it would remain unaffected that ridiculous. if i
shot you in the head youd die, if i shot you in the leg youd be wounded.
same goes for the film and music industry.
and what about the artists? you are cheating them of the recognition they
deserve. how would you feel if you made an amazing buffet and party and
left a donations box and everyone just ate your food, said nothing and gave
nothing? sure, everyone dowloads, but you should pay for the stuff you
really love.
there's is an easy way to bypass that. Just put repeat after the word
"youtube" in the link. Same works for video's which are not for your age.
(The video will play over and over again, this is really helpfull if you
like a song)
So who gives a fuck? Be happy you're not watching in 240p Getting sick and
tired of HD whores -.-" In 3rd world countries something which is HD is
like black magic. It's fine if we just can see is clearly and good enough!
Sucks that Hammond is the only presenter in this special. It's not Top
Gear, it's how I guess they would call it in the BBC as they name all of
their documentaries and stuff - Richard Hammond's 50 years of Bond cars.
For some reason I just keep playing from 0:07 to 0:10 and Richard's face
when he says Toyota 2000 just screams (Get your shit straight Bond, it's a
Toyota 2000, not a Datsun. Just can't get enough of Hammond!! D:
Holy crap, I thought you were just talking shit. He really is about 11!
Man, that's actually quite a subtle and sneaky lie for his age. I bet it's
based on his parents' car, though. Not so witty, after all.
Hammond is the only one here because I believe this was filmed concurrently
with Clarkson and May doing The Worst Car in the History of the World. My
personal favourite Bond car has to be the Lotus Esprit.
Every year YT videos keep defaulting to lower and lower resolutions. (Now
down to 240p.) Ma Bell is taking away my bandwidth but charging me the same
amount monthly. This is what customer loyalty gets you.
Pity. I saw the title "50 Years of Bond Cars", and I thought I might enjoy
at least 50 seconds. I adore Top Gear; I only wish that they would post
things that I can watch for at least a minute.
The Z3 wasn't featured at all in my opinion. Just Q going through specs and
one lousy scene in the Caribbeans when the plane lands in front of the car.
Which is sad, because I like the Z3. :/