Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Peanut
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Male, 65

Forum

If the topic comes up then I talk about it regardless of who's part of the conversation. For example earlier this evening my youngest daughter was asking me where she could have her next piercing. I suggested maybe her clitoral hood, she replied that it sounds marginally less painful than her nipples.
I do like my kids to be open and frank about these matters. smile
NB I just _know_ she'll just go out in the New Year and get her foof pierced, I just know it! rolleyes
Quote by flower411
Have you noticed how quiet the trolls are today ??
There`s been no abuse and no arguments ....it`s been days since one of them attacked somebody for disagreeing with an original poster !! :shock:
Are they hibernating ??
It has been quiet without them ....but maybe we can all have a bit of fun while agreeing to disagree lol
We can say stuff without being attacked or abused just because we hold a different view !!!
Hurrayy !!! :thumbup:

Says one of the biggest trolls here! rolleyes
I have this longish word on the tip of my tongue, hyp.... something or other, I can't quite bring it to the fore. :roll:
There hasn't been a true Labour party in Government since 1979.
Since then we've had the Tories and Tories Lite.
Bring back a Socialist labour party and I'll be happy. Until such time as that happens (if ever) then the closest we can get to my ideal is the Lib-Dems. yes it may be a wasted vote, but I cannot in all conscience vote for either Labour or Conservative. They are both too far Right for my sensibilities.
Quote by Evane
Yes all of them desrve round of applause and pat on the back. Did you know the Nazi's put an end to swinging in germany in the 30's, Hitler was a complete arsehole.

Sounds like the sort of thing the bible-bashing Bush would like to do.
There are many similarities (too many for comfort) between the Bush administration and Hitler's Nationalist Party.
Quote by kentswingers777
I dont know either but.....WITHOUT the Yanks money we would have lost the war. Hitler would have won. Looking at Brown and his cronies would we have been any worse off? lol

It's debatable whether we'd have been worse off under Hitler compared to being under Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush Jnr etc! rolleyes
I think most people would rather be on the side of Nixon/Regan or Bush than Hitler. Then again maybe not.
Nothing is perfect in this world it never was but... I or any of us can only imagine what it would now be like had Hitler have won.
I would think it would be a bit like Russia is. A lot worse than what we have at the moment. I do not know all the politics that went on during and after the second World War but...whatever we may think about the Yanks, it was their money and their troops that led Europe to victory. And for that as we sit on our comfy sofas or on our computers, or watching our nice big Plasmas, we should all be grateful....that's all I am saying.
I can't say I'm grateful to the yanks for anything. As far as the war goes, in my view it was the Russians that put paid to Hitler's boys the Yanks came in late and did a clean-up of what was left after the Russian front decimated the Germans.
Quote by Evane
Apparantly grinding it up and snorting it reduces side effects also.
It has something to do with the oestrogen going straight to the blood stream rather than being digested by the kidneys.
Whatever you do don't try this in public, nobody will belive you when u say you are snoting the pill.

Errr, sorry to be a know-it-all (well actually I'm not but these sort of statements are invariably prefixed with this sort of apology :twisted: ) but anything that goes in the bloodstream is filtered by the kidneys. That's what they're there for.
Quote by kentswingers777
Years ago he would be in a nut house...now it is called " care in the community ".

Remind me, which political party foisted "care in the community" on us?
Oh ye with short memories :P
Quote by kentswingers777
I dont know either but.....WITHOUT the Yanks money we would have lost the war. Hitler would have won. Looking at Brown and his cronies would we have been any worse off? lol

It's debatable whether we'd have been worse off under Hitler compared to being under Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush Jnr etc! rolleyes
Quote by flower411
I have no party loyalty. I am afraid these days I vote for the party that I believe will do the least damage. I am a floater :shock:
I do believe that one should vote so at least one can say I did my bit to improve our lot. To not vote undermines our voice imho, if we can't be arsed to make our views known with a vote we can't really critiscise when we get the dross we get.
Next stop lobbying my mp...now thats real democracy...make the buggers accountable

This is a point often brought up by people who vote for the sake of it.
To be honest I think that voting for the least bad option just so that you can say you have voted, is the thing that undermines our voice.
The people that receive your vote are encouraged into thinking that they are doing it right because you voted for them.
If all of the negative voters abstained and told their politicians that they had done so because they are all a useless bunch, maybe, just maybe some of them would actually think about what they were doing and listen to the electorate.
To vote "because I can" or "because it`s my duty" is the lazy option, it seems to exonerate you from any blame from all the shit that`s going on.
Tactical voting is a time honoured 'tradition' and shouldn't be dismissed as "undermining our voice". It has a use and as the legislation currently stands is much more beneficial than a spoiled vote.
Quote by Sixfootsix
Then I stand corrected in single CPU configuration, but they're certainly not cheap and I'd imagine a dual CPU MB is going to be in the scary end of the price range.
It certainly tells me that in January (if the rumour mill is to be believed) the Mac Pro's will get even better. smile
I still don't understand the overpriced bit, yes they cost a bit more in certain circumstances, but they hardly depreciate. In a year the mac will have lost hardly any of it's original value, the "PC" will have lost almost all of it's value due to a million newer graphics cards/processors being released - you have to look at the purchase price of a mac over a longer term - you can recoup and awfully large amount of it back should you upgrade.
And for what it's worth, if somebody came to me and asked me for advice on getting a mac, I'd still send them down the Apple store to try for themselves, one size doesn't fit all.

The fact still remains though that under the hood they are just an overpriced PC, even more so since changing to Intel.
The CPU and motherboard are indeed the biggest chunk of the price, but everything else is just bog standard (and under specced in most cases). The memory is standard (albeit ECC), the hard drives are standard (and the default is a rather small, slow cheapie).
The other thing that puts me off is the one thing Mac users seem to think is a 'best feature', ie lack of choice in what hardware to put in it (I'm talking about buying from Apple, not aftermarket upgrades). For example there's next to no choice in graphics cards and what are available are pretty naff and once again grossly overpriced. What if you want a different shaped case that wasn't brushed aluminium? And iMacs are next to impossible to upgrade yourself. In any case they're just a laptop stuck on a stand anyway.
Don't get me wrong, if they brought the price down to a reasonable level and increased the available choice of components I'd buy one straight away (a mac Pro that is). I do think they are cracking machines and are wonderfully designed. And I love OS/X apart from the problem with getting your hands dirty under the bonnet as I can do with XP (mind you that's pretty naff compared to the tweaking you could do pre-XP). Damn I hate wizards, and I hate the computer telling you what it can do. I was under the impression that it was there to do as I wanted. rolleyes
Quote by Ian
I read at the weekend that the george forman grill was one of the most unused presents given in the UK. However top of the pile of presents used, and then very quickly given up with is the exercise bike.
hmmmm we've got both confused

Coincidentally my George Foreman grill, which hasn't been used for quite a while, has, over the last few days, had a resurgence now I've figured out how to use it to make Ham & Cheese toasties. Mmmmmm.
Hmmm, "exercise" and "bike" in the same sentence. Nope, cannot parse that! :twisted:
Isn't this what home contents insurance is for?
Nice Christmas present for you both... a nice new carpet biggrin
Quote by kentswingers777
As for somebody saying about throwing money at the armed forces or the " war ", that comes out of a completly different budget. I am talking about the Social Security budget and what money they have, or not as the case maybe.

LMAO.
I do hope you didn't mean to be serious with that statement.
Where do you think the Government gets their money from before it's split up into different budgets.
And why do you think that expression "that's a different budget" is used so frequently? It's because it's a tried and tested obfuscation method.
Every single penny of Government money is public money. It matters not a jot which "budget" it is spent under.
Every penny spent on 'defence' could very easily be re-routed to be spent anywhere else. They're just a number in a computer.
The public 'pot' is finite so all Government spending is in effect 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.
Different budget? How hilarious. rolleyes
Quote by kentswingers777
Peanut I have made my opinions very clear, on many occasions. I have not nor never have had, any problems with people claiming benefits IF they are entitled to them.
Yes you are correct by saying these Mothers ARE entitled to the money they get by law. What is happening now is that the laws will be changed. Laws change all the time.
I believe that the genuine claimants out there are NOT given anywhere near the ammount they should be but....others are being given money that they could do something to get.
Would it not be a fairer system whereby the genuine ones get more money, and the ones that can work, do something constructive to get theirs?
As you seem to be a genuine claimant, would you not want more money? I think you would as would others but...we cannot continue to sustain Mothers with kids who do not or have never worked, and more importantly have no intention of ever doing so. That surely cannot be right, but a balance has to be struck where it is fair. And that is where I think this will fall down because, some genuine claimants will be dragged into the net and told they have to find some kind of work.
This kind of radical change in the law of course will have people up in arms, but radical decisions normally does.
I would just like to see a fairer system where the likes of Karen Mathews cannot screw the system, and if she could have worked and payed her dues like most do, maybe just maybe she would not have become the dreadful Mother she turned out to be.
It has become a culture for many who can work, but choose the benefit route as a lifestyle choice. I am saying that choice should be taken away, but NOT from the genuine claimants. That to me seems a fairer system than the one we currently have.

Firstly please let me make it clear. I wasn't referring to you directly. If you want to consider yourself as part of the 'Right' then that's fine too. Just so long as you realise that when I refer to the Right I'm talking about a political doctrine not anyone in particular.
Now I've cleared that up, what's with the segregation of so-called "genuine" claimants. If any claimant has passed the criteria for entitlement to any benefits then they are genuine. Full stop. You or anyone else outside the benefits system do not get to decide who is genuine and who isn't.
The other thing I take exception to with your usual black and white sweeping generalisations is "intent". Means tested benefits are based on circumstance and financial situation. Intent is not a factor and until it is it is unfair to start spouting off about mothers who "don't intend to work". Whilst the rules don't insist they work then why the hell should they? It's hard enough work looking after a youngster as it is.
Yes rules/laws do change, often not for the better. Most times for the benefit of the people who make the law and not for the benefit of the people subject to the law.
And what's this BS about benefits not being sustainable? Of course they are. If the Government can keep throwing money at a Defence budget that is becoming increasingly unnecessary then I'm bloody sure they can throw money at the people who are in the most need of help.
Once again your opinions show bias towards money and not people. I for one find that far more distasteful than the odd fake SS claimant.
Why do people get so uptight about people claiming benefits?
The simple fact of the matters is that these people are entitled by law to the benefits they are claiming otherwise they wouldn't be getting them.
So why, over time, has something which all of us are entitled to should we meet the requirements become and excuse to be called a sponger or someone that is forced into a situation that probably isn't best for them?
State benefits for the entitled are one of the things that sets us apart from most other countries (and I mean that in a good way).
Why must the right wing always be moaning about the cost of benefits paid out when the Government wastes far more money on other things that don't really benefit us as people. Trident missiles anyone? Bailing out incompetent banks. Lending money to countries who obviously will never be able to pay it back.
I wonder how many people could have benefited from the money spent on the Millenium Dome, or Blair's pied de terre?
People should always come first, something the Right always seem to forget.
A time of year I dislike intensely. These days it's just a 'Hallmark moment'.
It means nothing to most people other than something to save up for, get stressed about, fall out with the family and used as a hurdle to get over in readiness to die on Boxing Day. rolleyes
Quote by blonde

They cost roughly twice what an equivalent powered PC costs. They have limited software availability. They have limited hardware upgradeability. Did I mention they cost the fucking earth?

They also come in pink!!! :inlove:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So do Dells at half the price.
I don't want Dell's .......... I want my own!!! :giggle:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dell is quite willing to share... at a price!
:P
Quote by Theladyisaminx
You should right comedy scripts

The ones that fall over? innocent
Quote by kentswingers777

I really cannot see a problem with this, and the Mathews comment makes my blood curl. mad

"had seven children" and "never worked" all in the same sentence?
What fucking planet is that guy on? I'm sure he'd just love to stay at home and look after 7 kids all for 400 quid a week. rolleyes
Quote by Lost
Does our concept of "God" have to be anthropormorphic?

Anything by Tony Harts OK by me biggrin
There's no way I'm gonna pray to Morph so there :P
If I had to choose from two options, neither of which are real chocolate, I'm afraid I'd have to choose Galaxy.
It also seems to me that the politicians who go on about work shy mothers and the 'fact' that they need to go back to "work" are forgetting one very important point...
Looking after a kid IS a job. It's an unpaid, very difficult and most of the time, untrained job.
When we had our first child I worked and the ex-wife stayed at home looking after her until she was of an age where the wife could go back to work.
When our second child arrived I was out of work due to injury so I looked after our youngest whilst the wife worked.
The end result is that I've seen it from both sides, so know just how much work it is to bring a kid up. No mum (or dad) bringing up a kid single-handed should ever be called "work shy". They may well be doing a shite job, but it's still a job nonetheless.
Quote by ayoke71
Not sure how you think of it as apples and pears. They're both computers doing the same thing in the same basic way.

I was referring to the price comparisons you were drawing. You implied an excessive extra cost for everything related to Mac, which is wrong. You can't compare Macs to low level PCs and cheap gear.

I wasn't referring to cheap components. I was referring to the sort of components an equivalent PC would have. Incidentally the components in any sort of mac aren't as high specced as one would think given the prices being charged for them.
Incidentally I should point out that I'm neither a PC nor a Mac 'fanboi'.

I didn't take you for one either. Merely pointing out that your view were a bit extreme. I presume they were extreme by choice, trying to emphasise that the CHEAPER option is to buy a PC. You are right there. However, you forgot to make clear that it is only cheaper if you don't want the same sort of quality. This may not be important for all, but I'd prefer to know at which point I'll be cheaper and at which point more expensive. Macs can be cheaper than PC products, too. Yet they aren't actually worse than those more expensive products. This is the difference of the meaning of a balanced review that appears to separate our opinions.

A lot of the time the components going into the expensive Macs are exactly the same as go into a PC, especially with regard to hard drives, memory, optical drives and video cards. The only difference is that Apple make sure they all have the same spec so that they are as compatible as possible. Look at the recent hoohaa about the ATI2600 video card that went into the Mac Pros. Apple called it one thing but any diagnostic gear run on it showed it to be the most basic 2600 but Apple still charged a good deal more for it than the top specced 2600 would have cost a PC user.
The other myth that needs debunking is the fact that OS/X does crash... regularly. Admittedly it doesn't crash as much as Vista, but it's not far off the same as XP. It may not get BSOD but it does crash in its own inimitable way.

I agree that in certain circumstances the Mac can also crash. However, I'd not put the frequency anywhere near that of XP. The crashes on a Mac usually have to do with the mount demon. In Windows nearly any more complex application can cause a system crash.

Genuinely I get very few crashes on my PC, maybe one a month. Invariably it's brought down by the same application time and time again. Guess what it is... can you guess? No? Would you believe that the only program that has crashed this PC since I built it is iTunes!
Personally I prefer OS/X to any MS OS, but ultimately if you take away the OS you are left with a very expensive PC that is monopolised by Apple.
OS/X's superior stability hasn't got all that much to do with Apple. It's the FreeBSD superstructure that holds it up. Similarly if you install Linux/KDE on a PC you have an OS that is as reliable as OS/X and has all the strengths and on a hardware platform that is more than half the price.

Hmm, I don't want to be offensive but I do not think you see what you pay for when buying a Mac. At least I buy more than just hardware with a pretty OS on top of it. I buy compatibility to ensure that I don't have to constantly worry about clashing components and their respective drivers.
You are right, the core stability comes from BSD but it takes more than that. DOS was pretty stable in the late stages but Windows still crashed more often than not. Aqua also crashes but rarely. The last time I worked on Linux was earlier this year using a version of SuSE 10. KDE still isn't as stable as Aqua and I didn't expect it either. If I wanted a maximum of stability I'd get Slackware again. But the trade-off is new functionality, which Slackware doesn't offer due to focus on stability. I wrote half my thesis on a Slackware box. Linux has great features in its window managers but unless they have improved vastly over the past ten months, they aren't as stable as Aqua, or some features don't work on some graphics cards etc. I used to be Linux 'fanboy' if you want to call it that but today I only use it to tinker around. For nothing would I trade back from my Mac for regular work.

I only use Linux (coincidentally Suse 10.3 smile ) for my servers. I use a top specced Mac Mini for one audio media server and for occasional Photoshop and Final Cut usage.
Mind you have you ever tried to play FLAC files on a Mac? rolleyes
My PC is far more versatile both in the hardware I have access to and to the software I would want to use (I use a lot of custom GPLed software for various audio and video conversions etc). A Mac cannot hope to match the PC for the range of available software. Give a Mac the appropriate software and most times it will excel over a PC, but if you can't get the software you want...
So what Mac users usually wax lyrical about is OS/X, not the Mac itself. Once you take that out of the equation there are no real life benefits of spending out on a Mac.

Err, I can't quite see your point here. Are you saying what Mercedes drivers really rave on about is the engine? If you remove that and put a Ford engine in it becomes a Ford? It is the whole thing. Just look at MacOnPC. They cracked it but it never made it to full compatibility. Yes, it is MacOS that we discuss here versus Windows but it'd be odd to remove the actual computer from the equation. Your argument is still "expensive PC" because you compare discounter ware with Macs. That's like comparing a Fiat 500 with a Ferrari - Fiat makes both.

Mac hardware is no longer the custom built stuff it used to be in the days when Motorola had the contract for the CPUs and chipset. These days there is very little difference in the hardware between a Mac and a PC with the exception that the Mac hardware is lower specced and much more expensive. Apple justifies the expense by saying that the items are homogeneous with the whole system. What that means in real life is that they limit the range of parts so that they can guarantee compatibility.
So yes Fiat and Ferarri are one and the same, but what they don't do is put the engine of a Fiat into a Ferrari but this is exactly what Apple do with their Macs.
Once Apple finally give in to public demand and release a PC version of OS/X (rather than the hacked versions) I'll be first in the queue! Until then I'll continue to use the best tool for the job... which currently, for everyday use (the use I put a computer to anyway), is the PC.

I would take a wide berth if I had the room. To me it is the flawless compatibility that makes all the difference. That is what I pay for - happily. ;)

The only reason you get compatibility is because of the limited range. Personally I'd prefer the extra choice then work round the compatibility issues. As it happens when I choose the parts (as do most system builders) I do it with knowledge and experience. The end result is I don't get compatibility issues and I've saved a fortune but got top of the line gear too.
I hope you don't take offense on my comments. There is no intention to be offensive. My opinion is very different to yours and depending on point of view, both of us are just as right as we are wrong. My emphasis when buying a computer is simply a different one than yours. I have a Mac to work and a PC to play games (on XP) and tinker with Linux and Vista (both in virtual machines). There is currently no work that I can think of for myself that'd require me to move back to a PC. That said, it obviously depends on what software your company uses.

Nope, no offence taken at all.
I do notice that you've glossed over the spec of the Mac needed to run Windows in VMWare ;)
It's bad enough running WINE in Linux :)
I've also been reading a lot just recently how people's Macs have been overheating trying to run Vista in the virtual environment because of the strain being put on the CPU. It doesn't sound ideal to me and if people really want to run Windows on a Mac then I suggest they only use Boot Camp to do it.
Quote by blonde

They cost roughly twice what an equivalent powered PC costs. They have limited software availability. They have limited hardware upgradeability. Did I mention they cost the fucking earth?

They also come in pink!!! :inlove:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So do Dells at half the price.
Quote by Sixfootsix

Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.

Just to point out that a mac pro in default config, but with only 1 processor is £1339, and these are Xeon quad cores and the motherboard supports dual processors regardless of how many are fitted at the factory.
does that include a monitor/display though? i wouldnt think so
Does your equivalant spec £400 jobbie include a monitor too?
(No is the answer lol)
Hmmm, let me see.... 24" widescreen Iiyama/BenQ/Viewsonic/etc approx £200 compared to a 23" Apple display at £400.
Quote by Deviants

Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.

Just to point out that a mac pro in default config, but with only 1 processor is £1339, and these are Xeon quad cores and the motherboard supports dual processors regardless of how many are fitted at the factory.
does that include a monitor/display though? i wouldnt think so
No it doesn't. Not even a keyboard and mouse.
To get the equivalent of my PC setup, which isn't a cheap discount model. I hand picked all the components and built it myself as such they are top of the line. To get the same thing in a Mac it would cost about 5 grand. It cost me £1600 and although it's only a quad core (a Q9450 for the geeks) but it has a better video card than comes with a mac pro (it's a nVidia 8800GT) it has in a raid and two display screens not to mention scanners breakout audio hardware and all sorts of other goodies far in excess of the Mac.
The other thing to consider is that Apple's prices have been going up for quite a while whereas the quality of the components has been going down unfortunately.
Personally it would have been...
1) "Of course dear, you go and lie down"
2) Leave presents in middle of floor.
3) Go do something else far more interesting and involving.
4) When the missus wakes up direct her to the presents with the accompanying speech "I left them for you dear, you are so much better at this than me".
5) Return to the interesting task you had to pause doing when she woke up.
6) Job's a good 'un. She feels superior, you didn't have to wrap them and you got an hours peace and did something you actually enjoyed doing.
Quote by ayoke71
I am in agreement with sixfoot. I am using both, work with both and can't really agree all that much with Peanut, sorry. Can't compare apples with pears.

Not sure how you think of it as apples and pears. They're both computers doing the same thing in the same basic way.
Incidentally I should point out that I'm neither a PC nor a Mac 'fanboi'.
I'm a correct tool for the job person. If it's a Mac then I'll use that similarly if I figure the PC is the better tool then I'll use that.
The other myth that needs debunking is the fact that OS/X does crash... regularly. Admittedly it doesn't crash as much as Vista, but it's not far off the same as XP. It may not get BSOD but it does crash in its own inimitable way.
Personally I prefer OS/X to any MS OS, but ultimately if you take away the OS you are left with a very expensive PC that is monopolised by Apple.
OS/X's superior stability hasn't got all that much to do with Apple. It's the FreeBSD superstructure that holds it up. Similarly if you install Linux/KDE on a PC you have an OS that is as reliable as OS/X and has all the strengths and on a hardware platform that is more than half the price.
So what Mac users usually wax lyrical about is OS/X, not the Mac itself. Once you take that out of the equation there are no real life benefits of spending out on a Mac.
Once Apple finally give in to public demand and release a PC version of OS/X (rather than the hacked versions) I'll be first in the queue! Until then I'll continue to use the best tool for the job... which currently, for everyday use (the use I put a computer to anyway), is the PC.
If they want mums to go back to work perhaps they should put their money where their mouths are and start getting some Government subsidised (and compulsory) crèche facilities in all firms (with above a certain number of employees).
Half the time mums don't go back to work is because there is no affordable child care available (in some cases no child care full stop).
FFS will you get someone who knows what they are doing to sort out this db access problem. Talk about fucking annoying! mad