You think gunts are in good taste, subs?

you don't see Spanx, do you? How are they in bad taste?

/dnrtfa

Loaf's Tray: timujin: you don't see Spanx, do you? How are they in bad taste?

/dnrtfa

He means they literally taste bad, and he's not wrong...

I haven't tried to eat my way through a pair, yet, but there's still time

Spanx are the reason it takes a good 10 minutes for her to pull everything backup after using the restroom.

FarkinHostile: The person who invented spanx should be shot in the head. Twice now I have been unpleasantly surprised by the lie.

The real question is.."did it stop you?"

Does anyone remember that video of two guys singing about how much they love fat chicks with gunts? It was hysterical, done in a rap video format.... I'm totally coming up dry on google here.

A cookie to whoever can deliver!

Why do I get the feeling someone is trying to copy apple and filing a suit over an "infringement" that is actually a forced choices and probably over something that existed before the design "patented".

spandex can be a good thing.




True more often than not it isn't

Theaetetus: sjmcc13: Why do I get the feeling someone is trying to copy apple and filing a suit over an "infringement" that is actually a forced choices and probably over something that existed before the design "patented".

Probably because you didn't read much about the Apple-Samsung suit except what you saw here on Fark, and ignored anything that didn't fit with your preconceived notions about it?

No, I read more. I just understand the stuff well enough to notice that a lot of apples patents should never have been issued. Many of the things apple was listing off in the design patents suits were things that came from merging a cell phone and a PDA (which is all an iPhone is, and that is NOT something apple cameup with). or were functionally necessary and/or forced choices.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: spandex can be a good thing.

[img688.imageshack.us image 274x700]


True more often than not it isn't

I respect a broad who can pull off a good Mayday Parker, and I generally hate cosplayers.

opiumpoopy: rikkitikkitavi: MyKingdomForYourHorse: I go with the Nip Tuck methodology. Paper bag, lights off, and like driving my hands remain at ten and two

FYI, the new driver's ed rule is "8 and 4".

/  have a teen driver.
// family dining has a new DD

????

Gotta keep your hands close to the 20oz soda in case of emergencies??

Well, honestly, it is more comfortable, and probably less fatiguing in the long run.

I mean, at 10 and 2, your arms are extended, raised, and locked for the entire time you're driving. At the bottom of the wheel, you're a bit more relaxed.

Of course, in looking it up, a major reason for the change seems to be that with hands at 10 and 2, an airbag will majorly fark your arms and hands up in a crash.

Theaetetus: sjmcc13: No, I read more. I just understand the stuff well enough to notice that a lot of apples patents should never have been issued. Many of the things apple was listing off in the design patents suits were things that came from merging a cell phone and a PDA (which is all an iPhone is, and that is NOT something apple cameup with). or were functionally necessary and/or forced choices.

If they were functionally necessary and/or forced choices, then by definition, Samsung couldn't have made non-infringing smart phones and tablets, such the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, which doesn't infringe, or this sucker:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 450x362]

They are making different designs because different people want different options. If they want to market to all demographics they have to design phones for each demographic. This is the same thing in pretty much every industry.

To a fair number of people that phone would not be desirable since the slideout keypad is only a benefit to those who need physical keys, and is a flaw to to many others as it it an extra point where the phone can and will break due to it creating a structural weak point.

The problem is that apple is trying to claim all the design space for what certain demographics will want as their own.

Your example is akin to looking at a car company and saying this 2 seat sports card is obviously copying my 2 seat sports car, and the other guy obviously chose to copy me since he also makes a 4 seat family car. you are trying to justify something as being true, but it relies on the system not being broken, and unfortunatly it is F-ing broken as all hell. and the people makign mone of it do not want to change it.

The same thing happens in software when someone claims another guy stole their program, because they both do the same thing in similar ways, but then it turn out that both based their work on the same text books/ papers, and the similarities are almost all things that came from the shared source material.

The problem with the tech industry patents suits is that the only people who are actually qualified to judge them are the academics who are teaching and grading the base material, sinc they are the ones who are aware of just how similiar indipendently developed code/circuits/etc can be when you just give someone a problem description to solve. The vase majority of these patent suits are cases that should be thrown out since they rely on the system not working in the first place.