Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Options
1…328329330331333

Comments

  • Options
    #9962
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,601 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Buer wrote: »
    Language evolves naturally. When we call them actors, then we'll call them actors. Until then, forcing people to abandon a completely normal and accetable word like actress is silly, to my mind. A term like manageress has faded out from our lexicon naturally.

    Some of these are more annoying than others. I am okay with actress petering out over time because it isn't hugely harmful, but I think the term "air hostess" needed to be pushed out because I think it was just an uncomfortable term that became sort of demeaning for a lot of people involved in the industry (men and women).


  • Options
    #9963
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    While the term may be disfavoured the requirement for makeup is a far more insidious vestige IMO.


  • Options
    #9964
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    pickarooney wrote: »
    While the term may be disfavoured the requirement for makeup is a far more insidious vestige IMO.

    For actresses or for women in general? Everyone in a film wears makeup. Including all the men.

    Edit - if not actresses then don't mind me. If it's air hostesses then the likes of Emirates have all sorts of rules over appearance that their staff must follow, think there's a height requirement, etc.


  • Options
    #9965
    DGRulz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,231 ✭✭✭DGRulz


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    For actresses or for women in general? Everyone in a film wears makeup. Including all the men.

    Assume they meant air hostess.


  • Options
    #9966
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Postman Pat, I think


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9967
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I meant ladies who work in aeroplanes. I've actually no idea what the current job title is!


  • Options
    #9968
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,601 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    pickarooney wrote: »
    I meant ladies who work in aeroplanes. I've actually no idea what the current job title is!

    Cabin Crew.


  • Options
    #9969
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    "I'm a cabin crew" sounds a little collective...


  • Options
    #9970
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Flight attendant?


  • Options
    #9971
    DGRulz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,231 ✭✭✭DGRulz


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Postman Pat, I think

    Are you telling me Jess doesn't wear a bit of make-up?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9972
    Rigor Mortis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,902 ✭✭✭Rigor Mortis


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    For actresses or for women in general? Everyone in a film wears makeup. Including all the men.

    Edit - if not actresses then don't mind me. If it's air hostesses then the likes of Emirates have all sorts of rules over appearance that their staff must follow, think there's a height requirement, etc.

    Height requirement may be a safety point. There was a minimum requirement to ensure access to safety equipment in Overheads.


  • Options
    #9973
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    533 million euro in crypto currency was stolen after one of the exchanges was hacked!


  • Options
    #9974
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    0625wCY.png


  • Options
    #9975
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    0625wCY.png

    Does your diagram mean most people are thick?


  • Options
    #9976
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Stheno wrote: »
    Does your diagram mean most people are thick?

    It means people who don't understand cryptocurrency probably shouldn't be betting their house on it!


    EDIT: It's actually specifically referring to buttcoin, which is a subreddit where people track the trials and tribulations of people getting absolutely wrecked by betting on dodgy cryptos.


  • Options
    #9977
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Well, time to stay off TV until May.


  • Options
    #9978
    dregin
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭dregin


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    Well, time to stay off TV until May.

    Radio is worse.


  • Options
    #9979
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    dregin wrote: »
    Radio is worse.

    Radio too. It's going to be awful.


  • Options
    #9980
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    Radio too. It's going to be awful.

    Democracy is a messy, messy system.

    I suppose it gives a taste of what the likes of America go through with their incredibly prolonged election cycles. Even compared to that it is a short period.


  • Options
    #9981
    dregin
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭dregin


    The sooner the likes of the Iona Institute are forbidden from spreading their ****e until they disclose their sources of funding, the better. Having to endure them on Radio 1 is soul destroying.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9982
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    dregin wrote: »
    The sooner the likes of the Iona Institute are forbidden from spreading their ****e until they disclose their sources of funding, the better. Having to endure them on Radio 1 is soul destroying.

    Organisations on the other side are not clean either. I'm certain both sides are being funded by Americans.

    NWCI receives taxpayers' money and campaigns on the repeal side. It's a very bad look and I'm surprised the pro-lifers don't make a bigger deal out of it.


  • Options
    #9983
    dregin
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭dregin


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    The other side is just as guilty.

    NWCI receives taxpayers' money and campaigns on the repeal side. It's a very bad look and I'm surprised the pro-lifers don't make a bigger deal out of it.

    The other side being the government? They tend to have their sources of income fairly well advertised.


  • Options
    #9984
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    Well, time to stay off TV until May.

    It's an unusual debate in that both sides feel they have a moral high ground and both sides have elements that hate the other side for their beliefs.

    It's going to be massively divisive and for an issue with so many grey areas it really tends to polarise people to one extreme or another.

    Either way I'm taking absolutely no part in the debate. If needs be I'll install one of those filter apps to remove the noise as we move towards May.


  • Options
    #9985
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    dregin wrote: »
    The other side being the government? They tend to have their sources of income fairly well advertised.

    I don't think the government campaigns on referenda. Political parties do.

    NWCI is a quango who are using taxpayers' money to campaign. It's totally wrong. Governments can fund charities but never lobby groups. Ever.

    FWIW I am comfortably on the Repeal side. I don't put stock in what backwards religious groups like Lolek Ltd. say.


  • Options
    #9986
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Pretty hard in this day and age to restrict sources of funding I would think. But yes, shenanigans are clearly being played on both sides in that respect.

    Not un-happy that I won't be in Ireland much over the coming months.


  • Options
    #9987
    dregin
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭dregin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's an unusual debate in that both sides feel they have a moral high ground and both sides have elements that hate the other side for their beliefs.

    It's going to be massively divisive and for an issue with so many grey areas it really tends to polarise people to one extreme or another.

    Either way I'm taking absolutely no part in the debate. If needs be I'll install one of those filter apps to remove the noise as we move towards May.

    Mostly completely unrelated, I bought my first chrome extension yesterday. It embeds the prices of a product across all of Amazon's sites in the page you're looking at. Pretty interesting to see some of the massive differences in one place.

    https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amazon-price-compare/lpioecjgaljbjbpnjjnbnhonfalgcnle?hl=en


  • Options
    #9988
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    It’s a strange one, there will be countless hours of debate on Tv and radio for the next four months. Yet 99% of people have already made up their minds and won’t be swayed. That’s a lot of debate to influence a very small section of society.


  • Options
    #9989
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,182 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    It means people who don't understand cryptocurrency probably shouldn't be betting their house on it!


    EDIT: It's actually specifically referring to buttcoin, which is a subreddit where people track the trials and tribulations of people getting absolutely wrecked by betting on dodgy cryptos.

    I have friends working in IT and finance who have made a very tidy profit on cryptocurrency but it's a hugely volatile of investing. They appear quite clued in on the whole matter and warned us all off investing for the first 1-2 months of 2018 if we were going to follow the herd. I set up my trading accounts 2 months ago but never actually put anything into it, thankfully.

    It seems madness to me that it's so unstable that you can look to cash out and by the transaction actually processes, your investment may have taken a significant hit.


  • Options
    #9990
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Was chatting to my sister-in-law's husband lately, he's a barrister and did some work for a guy who mines bitcoin for a living a couple of years ago. The guy actually suggested paying him in bitcoin and he agreed just for the novelty of it. Think his modest bill of about €400 was worth 6-10 grand when I was chatting to him a cpl weeks ago, depending on the current value. Of course, it could be worth €400 again tomorrow...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9991
    b.gud
    Registered Users Posts: 4,797 ✭✭✭b.gud


    dregin wrote: »
    Mostly completely unrelated, I bought my first chrome extension yesterday. It embeds the prices of a product across all of Amazon's sites in the page you're looking at. Pretty interesting to see some of the massive differences in one place.

    https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amazon-price-compare/lpioecjgaljbjbpnjjnbnhonfalgcnle?hl=en

    That looks really cool. For those of you too cheap to buy the extension, like me, I use https://www.curiua.com/ and find it really good


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement