Interesting Stuff Thread

robindch · 12-09-2012 2:30pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture

My head hurts.

magicbastarder · 12-09-2012 2:38pm

robindch wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture

My head hurts.

why? it's easy as 1-2-3.

Turtwig · 12-09-2012 2:38pm

shizz wrote: »

Never before has an article made me feel like such an idiot.

Starting with a 1000, add:
40;
1000;
30;
1000;
20;
1000;
and 10.

Answer please?

Not 5,000. Do it again.

Name all fourteen punctuations marks in the English Language.

Now, you're an idiot.:D

shizz · 12-09-2012 2:41pm

mikhail wrote: »

Don't worry about it; that wasn't the friendliest article for someone with no background in maths.

The key thing to get is that any number can be written as a product of prime numbers, and there's only one way to do that for each number. For example,

84 = 2 x 2 x 3 x 7

or to write that another way

84 = (2^2) x 3 x 7

The square free part of a number is just the number left if you take out the squared numbers. In the example above, it's 3 x 7 = 21.

These numbers seem to be useful if you're trying to prove things about equations like a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Like a lot of number theory, this stuff seems kind of pointless, but if you can prove certain relationships, it's actually really powerful stuff because it's so fundamental.

Well I've a background in engineering maths haha. I still don't really see the significance. What exactly is being proven?

sponsoredwalk · 12-09-2012 3:23pm

Here's a different formulation of the abc conjecture, slightly modified to make it easier to understand:

If I pick some random number e > 0 then there will always exist another number D such that if a + b = c then max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ

Before explaining this I'll rewrite it with actual numbers:

If I pick some random number, say 2, which is greater than zero then there will always exist another number D, say 1 in this case, such that if 3 + 4 = 7 then max(3,4,7) ≤ C(3·4·7)¹⁺², i.e. max(3,4,7) ≤ 1·(84)³, i.e. 7 ≤ (84)³, i.e. 7 ≤ 592,704

Here max(a,b,c) means the maximum of a, b or c, so max(3,7,4) = 7.

To understand (abc)¹⁺ᵉ:
First, more or less we can say that 2¹ means 2 multiplied by itself once.
Second we can say that 2² = 4 can be written like 4 = 2·2 = 2² = 2¹⁺¹.
Third we look at 4² = 16. Since 4 = 2·2 we can rewrite 16 = 4² =(2·2)².

So max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ just means that the biggest of your 3 numbers will always be smaller than some multiple D of the product of the 3 numbers, abc, as long as you raise the product abc of your 3 numbers to some power. This multiple will depend upon the number you originally chose raise abc to.

Pick 1, 8 & 9 as our a, b & c & we get:
max(1,8,9) ≤ D·(1·8·9)¹⁺ᵉ ---> 9 ≤ D·(72)¹⁺ᵉ
If I choose e = 1 then 9 ≤ D·(72)¹⁺¹ ---> 9 ≤ D·(72)².
So here we see that given e = 1 > 0 there exists another number D, say D = 1, such that max(1,8,9) ≤ D·(1·8·9)¹⁺ᵉ because 9 ≤ 1·(72)². See here that D is hypothesized to exist after we've picked our e value.

This theorem only holds if a, b & c have no common factor other than 1 (i.e. 4 & 6 have a common factor of 2 because 4 = 4·1 = 2·2 & 6 = 6·1 = 2·3 - so 4 & 6 won't feature in this theorem together, while 5 & 6 have no common factor other than 1 because 5 = 5·1 & 6 = 6·1 = 2·3, so we could use these).

What the theorem says is that most of the prime factors of certain numbers must occur to the first power, so in mikhail's example of 84 = 2²·3·7 we see most of the prime factors have no exponent like 2 has. Further it says that if you have small numbers, like 2 in 84 = 2²·3·7, that are raised to higher powers than 1 than there should be a big prime factor, e.g. 7, only to the first power so as to offset the balance & compensate. So if we had 2ⁿ + 1 = k then k would have a large prime factor as long as n is large. Picking n = 6 gives 2⁶ + 1 = 65 = 65·1 i.e. a large prime factor of 65... This is what the article means more or less when talking about the "square-free" part.

Also, note that max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ implies a ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ, b ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ & c ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ, so instead of a, b & c we choose aⁿ, bⁿ & cⁿ we can use the fact that a + b = c is part of our hypothesis to work on aⁿ + bⁿ= cⁿ, i.e. Fermat's last theorem for relatively prime integers...

That's all I know about it, the way the article talks about it all makes little sense to me quite frankly, it seems like they're discussing the above with different algebra chosen specifically to make it awkward...

Turtwig · 12-09-2012 4:06pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Here's a different formulation of the abc conjecture, slightly modified to make it easier to understand:

If I pick some random number e > 0 then there will always exist another number D such that if a + b = c then max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ

Before explaining this I'll rewrite it with actual numbers:

If I pick some random number, say 2, which is greater than zero then there will always exist another number D, say 1 in this case, such that if 3 + 4 = 7 then max(3,4,7) ≤ C(3·4·7)¹⁺², i.e. max(3,4,7) ≤ 1·(84)³, i.e. 7 ≤ (84)³, i.e. 7 ≤ 592,704

Here max(a,b,c) means the maximum of a, b or c, so max(3,7,4) = 7.

To understand (abc)¹⁺ᵉ:
First, more or less we can say that 2¹ means 2 multiplied by itself once.
Second we can say that 2² = 4 can be written like 4 = 2·2 = 2² = 2¹⁺¹.
Third we look at 4² = 16. Since 4 = 2·2 we can rewrite 16 = 4² =(2·2)².

So max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ just means that the biggest of your 3 numbers will always be smaller than some multiple D of the product of the 3 numbers, abc, as long as you raise the product abc of your 3 numbers to some power. This multiple will depend upon the number you originally chose raise abc to.

Pick 1, 8 & 9 as our a, b & c & we get:
max(1,8,9) ≤ D·(1·8·9)¹⁺ᵉ ---> 9 ≤ D·(72)¹⁺ᵉ
If I choose e = 1 then 9 ≤ D·(72)¹⁺¹ ---> 9 ≤ D·(72)².
So here we see that given e = 1 > 0 there exists another number D, say D = 1, such that max(1,8,9) ≤ D·(1·8·9)¹⁺ᵉ because 9 ≤ 1·(72)². See here that D is hypothesized to exist after we've picked our e value.

This theorem only holds if a, b & c have no common factor other than 1 (i.e. 4 & 6 have a common factor of 2 because 4 = 4·1 = 2·2 & 6 = 6·1 = 2·3 - so 4 & 6 won't feature in this theorem together, while 5 & 6 have no common factor other than 1 because 5 = 5·1 & 6 = 6·1 = 2·3, so we could use these).

What the theorem says is that most of the prime factors of certain numbers must occur to the first power, so in mikhail's example of 84 = 2²·3·7 we see most of the prime factors have no exponent like 2 has. Further it says that if you have small numbers, like 2 in 84 = 2²·3·7, that are raised to higher powers than 1 than there should be a big prime factor, e.g. 7, only to the first power so as to offset the balance & compensate. So if we had 2ⁿ + 1 = k then k would have a large prime factor as long as n is large. Picking n = 6 gives 2⁶ + 1 = 65 = 65·1 i.e. a large prime factor of 65... This is what the article means more or less when talking about the "square-free" part.

Also, note that max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ implies a ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ, b ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ & c ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ, so instead of a, b & c we choose aⁿ, bⁿ & cⁿ we can use the fact that a + b = c is part of our hypothesis to work on aⁿ + bⁿ= cⁿ, i.e. Fermat's last theorem for relatively prime integers...

That's all I know about it, the way the article talks about it all makes little sense to me quite frankly, it seems like they're discussing the above with different algebra chosen specifically to make it awkward...

Mother f**k sponsored all that math and no LaTeX. You are a disgrace to your profession.

robindch · 12-09-2012 4:32pm

boards supports [latex]\TeX[/latex]:

eg:

[[SIZE="2"]l[/SIZE]atex]
P = \frac{\displaystyle{
\sum_{i=1}^n (x_i- x)
(y_i- y)}}
{\displaystyle{\left[
\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-x)^2
\sum_{i=1}^n(y_i- y)^2
\right]^{1/2}}}
[/latex]

...produces...:

[latex]P = \frac{\displaystyle{
\sum_{i=1}^n (x_i- x)
(y_i- y)}}
{\displaystyle{\left[
\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-x)^2
\sum_{i=1}^n(y_i- y)^2
\right]^{1/2}}}[/latex]

decimatio · 12-09-2012 4:44pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Here's a different formulation of the abc conjecture, slightly modified to make it easier to understand:

If I pick some random number e > 0 then there will always exist another number D such that if a + b = c then max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ

Before explaining this I'll rewrite it with actual numbers:

If I pick some random number, say 2, which is greater than zero then there will always exist another number D, say 1 in this case, such that if 3 + 4 = 7 then max(3,4,7) ≤ C(3·4·7)¹⁺², i.e. max(3,4,7) ≤ 1·(84)³, i.e. 7 ≤ (84)³, i.e. 7 ≤ 592,704

Here max(a,b,c) means the maximum of a, b or c, so max(3,7,4) = 7.

To understand (abc)¹⁺ᵉ:
First, more or less we can say that 2¹ means 2 multiplied by itself once.
Second we can say that 2² = 4 can be written like 4 = 2·2 = 2² = 2¹⁺¹.
Third we look at 4² = 16. Since 4 = 2·2 we can rewrite 16 = 4² =(2·2)².

So max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ just means that the biggest of your 3 numbers will always be smaller than some multiple D of the product of the 3 numbers, abc, as long as you raise the product abc of your 3 numbers to some power. This multiple will depend upon the number you originally chose raise abc to.

Pick 1, 8 & 9 as our a, b & c & we get:
max(1,8,9) ≤ D·(1·8·9)¹⁺ᵉ ---> 9 ≤ D·(72)¹⁺ᵉ
If I choose e = 1 then 9 ≤ D·(72)¹⁺¹ ---> 9 ≤ D·(72)².
So here we see that given e = 1 > 0 there exists another number D, say D = 1, such that max(1,8,9) ≤ D·(1·8·9)¹⁺ᵉ because 9 ≤ 1·(72)². See here that D is hypothesized to exist after we've picked our e value.

This theorem only holds if a, b & c have no common factor other than 1 (i.e. 4 & 6 have a common factor of 2 because 4 = 4·1 = 2·2 & 6 = 6·1 = 2·3 - so 4 & 6 won't feature in this theorem together, while 5 & 6 have no common factor other than 1 because 5 = 5·1 & 6 = 6·1 = 2·3, so we could use these).

What the theorem says is that most of the prime factors of certain numbers must occur to the first power, so in mikhail's example of 84 = 2²·3·7 we see most of the prime factors have no exponent like 2 has. Further it says that if you have small numbers, like 2 in 84 = 2²·3·7, that are raised to higher powers than 1 than there should be a big prime factor, e.g. 7, only to the first power so as to offset the balance & compensate. So if we had 2ⁿ + 1 = k then k would have a large prime factor as long as n is large. Picking n = 6 gives 2⁶ + 1 = 65 = 65·1 i.e. a large prime factor of 65... This is what the article means more or less when talking about the "square-free" part.

Also, note that max(a,b,c) ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ implies a ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ, b ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ & c ≤ D(abc)¹⁺ᵉ, so instead of a, b & c we choose aⁿ, bⁿ & cⁿ we can use the fact that a + b = c is part of our hypothesis to work on aⁿ + bⁿ= cⁿ, i.e. Fermat's last theorem for relatively prime integers...

That's all I know about it, the way the article talks about it all makes little sense to me quite frankly, it seems like they're discussing the above with different algebra chosen specifically to make it awkward...

Me fail english? That's unpossible!

Turtwig · 12-09-2012 4:54pm

Apologies if there's typos it was a rushed job of an excellent but ugly post, might do a re-edit later.

sponsoredwalk · 12-09-2012 5:06pm

I can't believe you guys don't appreciate the beauty of these little html symbols, I mean look at them!
Δ ∇ ∀ ∃ ∋ ∈ ∉ ℒ{f(t)} = ♥ ◊ ♠ ♣ ♦ ∴ ∅ ℕ ℤ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℘ ℑ ℜ ∫ℯˣ ∮ ∂ ±÷ × • · ≡ ≠ ≅ ≈ ≤ ≥ √ ∑ᵢ ← ↑↔ ↓ → ↦ ⇒ ⇔ θ ∀ ☺ ⊕ ⊗ ⊥ ∞ ∝ ¯ ⋀ ⋁ ಠ _ಠ

All I'm missing is a superscript m & n

Cheers for the latex

:cool:

Turtwig · 12-09-2012 5:11pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I can't believe you guys don't appreciate the beauty of these little html symbols, I mean look at them!
Δ ∇ ∀ ∃ ∋ ∈ ∉ ℒ{f(t)} = ♥ ◊ ♠ ♣ ♦ ∴ ∅ ℕ ℤ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℘ ℑ ℜ ∫ℯˣ ∮ ∂ ±÷ × • · ≡ ≠ ≅ ≈ ≤ ≥ √ ∑ᵢ ← ↑↔ ↓ → ↦ ⇒ ⇔ θ ∀ ☺ ⊕ ⊗ ⊥ ∞ ∝ ¯ ⋀ ⋁ ಠ _ಠ

All I'm missing is a superscript m & n

Cheers for the latex :cool:

Actually I do appreciate them so bad that I actually have some of their alt + numpad html codes still memorised. (Alt +Num 0186) of cool:cool: (or shame.:o)
But [latex]\LaTeX[/latex] is much better looking in every way.:)
(Only con it has is when you need to google help for it on various topics e.g movies with LaTeX.)

mikhail · 12-09-2012 5:43pm

decimatio wrote: »

Me fail english? That's unpossible!

I have a PhD and I had to read parts of it twice.

In its simplest form, there was an equation (an inequality actually) that seems to hold for most whole numbers. The guys mentioned in the article may have proven it.

G.K. · 12-09-2012 7:35pm

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home

Gbear · 12-09-2012 7:56pm

G.K. wrote: »

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home

How do you pronounce "tu quoque"?

Is it like the french "quoique"?

Liamario · 12-09-2012 9:57pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3vV-wgXSdE

magicbastarder · 12-09-2012 10:27pm

robindch wrote: »

...produces...:

[latex]P = \frac{\displaystyle{
\sum_{i=1}^n (x_i- x)
(y_i- y)}}
{\displaystyle{\left[
\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-x)^2
\sum_{i=1}^n(y_i- y)^2
\right]^{1/2}}}[/latex]

robindch talking about latex?
you really are a bunch of godless pervs.

recedite · 12-09-2012 11:06pm

seamus wrote: »

"Square-free"? Never heard of it in my life.

Eh what, squares are bad for you now?

Hotblack Desiato · 13-09-2012 12:33am

robindch wrote: »

boards supports [latex]\TeX[/latex]:

Wish we'd had that when I was doing my thesis - we only had ChiWrite and it sucked

I think (20 years ago now) I got away without scribbling any equations into the thesis by hand, but only just.

Still, I feel a bit dumb when it comes to number theory and stuff - did the first year of a maths degree but dropped it for physics and chemistry from then on. When my friend who chose physics&maths was going to a maths lecture, the gag was "What's your maths lecture about?" "Number theory" "Which number is it this week? 2?" :pac: The real joke was on me because I still had to do maths classes as part of the physics option...

Hotblack Desiato · 13-09-2012 12:39am

So, if this guy's hypothesis is correct, does that make it a lot easier to factorise large primes and break RSA? :eek:

ShooterSF · 13-09-2012 1:00am

ninja900 wrote: »

So, if this guy's hypothesis is correct, does that make it a lot easier to factorise large primes and break RSA? :eek:

Hopefully not!! Think of the carnage on the roads! :eek:

(Rethinking this joke I probably should have referenced transformers too

)

Kivaro · 13-09-2012 2:42am

Dades wrote: »

Unconvinced! It either exists or it doesn't - so that's an equal chance either way in my book. :pac:

Well, that's very agnostic of you.

robindch · 13-09-2012 9:02am

Amateur guy photographs Jupiter. Catches comet impact by mistake. Here's the video:

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/19299984@N08/7976507568

robindch · 13-09-2012 9:13am

ninja900 wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

boards supports [latex]\TeX[/latex]:

Wish we'd had that when I was doing my thesis - we only had ChiWrite and it sucked I think (20 years ago now) I got away without scribbling any equations into the thesis by hand, but only just.

TeX has been around for almost 35 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX

In the absence at the time of first-rate math and other type-setting software in the late 1970's, Knuth developed TeX so that he could publish his monumental The Art of Computer Programming. Knuth, through TeX, both created and defined the art of mathematical type-setting, and sad gits like me maintain that its output hasn't really been substantially bettered since then.

ninja900 wrote: »

Still, I feel a bit dumb when it comes to number theory and stuff - did the first year of a maths degree but dropped it for physics and chemistry from then on.

Same here. I did mechanical engineering in university, studiously as much advanced maths as I could and especially avoiding number theory, and now find myself writing code around DES, AES, RSA and shortly ECC.

/sigh

mikhail · 13-09-2012 11:58am

ninja900 wrote: »

So, if this guy's hypothesis is correct, does that make it a lot easier to factorise large primes and break RSA? :eek:

I haven't heard a consequence mentioned. I doubt it. The conjecture was already well known, so if it cracks RSA it'd have been done already. It being proven doesn't change that.

magicbastarder · 13-09-2012 12:01pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/13/buzz-aldrin-communion-moon

Dave! · 13-09-2012 12:27pm

Not sure where to put this, but just thought I'd mention it :-/

Was out in Devitt's pub on Camden Street last weekend, and they had a nice ballad/trad session going on. We had been drinking since early in the day, so I was feeling very conversational

The lads were chatting amongst themselves, but I was more interested in the music, so was sitting close to an older man, in his late 60s probably. We started chatting (ended up talking to him the whole time I was there - f*ck the lads! Was only for a couple pints though anyway), and he ended up telling me about his wife having died relatively recently.

My memory gets a bit hazy at this point, but I'm not sure if it was their wedding, or her funeral, that he was talking about, but he said that himself and the wife had no interest in that "religion crap/sh*te", so it was a secular affair. I guess it must have been the wedding, cos I felt comfortable probing him on it a bit more

He's from Galway, and obviously of an older generation, so I was commenting that it was a bit unusual and asking if he felt any pressure to have a religious ceremony, and he was saying that they didn't care about that.

Incidentally I was asking what he worked at (he had only retired relatively recently), and I believe he said he used to be an engineer of some sort. Obviously found it hard to ditch that logical thinking!

It was kinda sad, cos his wife had died only soon after he retired, but he was telling me he has 3 or 4 (I can't remember - not that he couldn't remember!) biological children, and 1 foster child from somewhere in Africa. So he has a big family, which is nice. One of his daughters was playing in that group too.

That's my story

An interesting little episode in an entertaining day/night!

The Mad Hatter · 13-09-2012 12:59pm

Gbear wrote: »

How do you pronounce "tu quoque"?

Is it like the french "quoique"?

KWO-kwee.

Turtwig · 13-09-2012 1:03pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

KWO-kwee.

recedite · 13-09-2012 3:09pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/13/buzz-aldrin-communion-moon

As well as having a communion picnic, Aldrin also carried to the Moon a special Freemason deputization from Grand Master J. Guy Smith, with which to claim Masonic territorial jurisdiction over the Moon on behalf of the Grand Lodge of Texas....
which is probably why they made Armstrong the Master and Commander of the mission, and not Aldrin.

recedite · 13-09-2012 3:22pm

robindch wrote: »

Amateur guy photographs Jupiter. Catches comet impact by mistake. Here's the video:

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/19299984@N08/7976507568

Mass Extinction event; there go all the Jupiter dinosaurs :pac:

robindch · 13-09-2012 5:53pm

recedite wrote: »

Mass Extinction event; there go all the Jupiter dinosaurs :pac:

Next forum beers will be on Jupiter and I'll ask Galvasean to bring along his collection of rubber dinos to repopulate the place.

joseph brand · 13-09-2012 7:49pm

Brdr Canning worked frame-by-frame to reproduce the Mars Curiosity landing.

Working frame-by-frame, it took me four weeks to produce this video. It was a painstaking labor of love. You can support my efforts with a donation or a message of support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esj5juUzhpU

:cool:

joseph brand · 13-09-2012 8:14pm

Norwegian right conservative party proposes to deprive the church the right to marry people.

Ahead of next years election, the leading opposition party, conservatives "Høyre" proposes to give the state the the exclusive right to marry couples. This ensures that all tax benefits and legal protection are equal to all types of couples, regardless of sex, religion etc.
Also, such a proposition would make it a lot harder to arrange marriages (often within family and/or with minors), and polygami.
If approved, it would reduce the religious marriage to a simple ceremonial event.

Norway isn't just cold, it's cool.

muppeteer · 13-09-2012 10:14pm

More here

robindch · 13-09-2012 11:46pm

It's not only the islamics who have a gun fetish. Here's a Philippino RCC priest blessing 50 pro-government machine guns in Kauswagan on Mindanao.

More on that here:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/441780/1/.html
http://www.stvrjs.com/post/31392677895/this-picture-speaks-of-our-churchs-hypocrisy

muppeteer · 14-09-2012 12:02am

Your bullets won't penetrate my Coptic APC!!!

Calibos · 14-09-2012 1:29am

robindch wrote: »

It's not only the islamics who have a gun fetish. Here's a Philippino RCC priest blessing 50 pro-government machine guns in Kauswagan on Mindanao.

More on that here:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/441780/1/.html
http://www.stvrjs.com/post/31392677895/this-picture-speaks-of-our-churchs-hypocrisy

Sure we've been doing that in the West for a Millenia!!

Quatermain · 14-09-2012 8:11am

What next?

Napalm Sunday?
Bulletproof vestments?
Weapons of Mass destruction?

With regards the blessing of the guns, they are usually designated as Squad Automatic Weapons. Clearly, someone SAW the light.

Calibos · 14-09-2012 11:10am

More ammunition for us tbh

Turtwig · 14-09-2012 11:16am

Seriously, it's only when I saw images like the above APC being blessed that I realised how hilariously silly the act of dowsing yourself every day with holy water is.

(Yep, it took me that long because I'd grown so accustomed to it.)

MagicMarker · 14-09-2012 6:12pm

Former principal of private catholic school who refused entry to a pregnant girl because there "must be standards of morality in every school", seems to have suffered a set back in his own morality after he was found to be a tax fraud.

His 705,619 euro bill includes 346,059 euro in unpaid taxes, plus 100,016 euro interest and 259,544 euro in fines.

Scumbag.

Sarky · 14-09-2012 7:08pm

Bahahahahahahahaa!

Quatermain · 14-09-2012 7:19pm

No freaking way. Karma does exist.

recedite · 14-09-2012 8:22pm

How much would you need to have in a deposit account for the tax on the interest to be €346,000?
And where did he collect that from, seeing as his school is not a fee paying one? Very strange.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-09-2012 9:33pm

muppeteer wrote: »

Your bullets won't penetrate my Coptic APC!!!

Fetch the Holy Hand Grenade!

Turtwig · 14-09-2012 10:14pm

ninja900 wrote: »

Fetch the Holy Hand Grenade!

Right you are sir!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAVtyHxRl04

Calibos · 15-09-2012 12:52am

Calibos wrote: »

Sure we've been doing that in the West for a Millenia!!

[Cough] :cool: [/cough]

Hotblack Desiato · 15-09-2012 3:01am

Calibos wrote: »

[Cough] :cool: [/cough]

Well, that's what I get for browsing the web with javascript and plugins turned off like a paranoid mofo rationally cautious sceptic who doesn't assume random 3rd-party code is safe.

joseph brand · 18-09-2012 7:28pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Former principal of private catholic school who refused entry to a pregnant girl because there "must be standards of morality in every school", seems to have suffered a set back in his own morality after he was found to be a tax fraud.

Scumbag.

Here he is:
College%203%20600.jpg

From this site.

He looks the part alright. A real creep.

Sarky · 19-09-2012 12:21am

Something about him screams "geezer".

Interesting Stuff Thread

Comments