@RogueWarrior: typically someone that committed to business is inversely proportionally committed to relationships. The test may have picked up on that. Don't feel bad, the first time I tried eHarmony they flat out told me they couldn't match me. And they didn't say why, but I suspect it was based on my being too…

@rebeldevil: you'd be surprised how many girls don't care about that stuff and are just interested in a decent guy (respectful, attentive, etc.), as long as you're contacting girls "in your league." That's something a lot of guys get "confused" about but it's simply a fact of life. There are leagues and you generally…

@dinniedraco: It's true that's a common use of dating sites, the hookup, but it's becoming more and more common as a legitimate companion source. Logically, dating sites improve your odds at finding someone compatible by simply greater numbers with desired aspects. It's just a question of accepting technology and…

@golferal: It's true. Makeup and strategic clothing paint a way different picture than someone naked and raw in the light. But it's the "get your foot in the door" method. As you get to know someone the way you see them changes. If you like them, they get better looking. Most people fuck in the dark, and it feels…

@clevernamehere: You should probably change it yearly at least. You may think you haven't changed much, but you look at yourself in the mirror everyday and see only imperceptible micro changes.

@Enigmas: There you go

@Soap Flakes: yeah, that's definitely not supposed to be happening.

I know they're called sports cars, but car racing isn't a sport.

@LTMP: used to be true, but not any more. Just like it used to be only geeks that had an email address, now everyone has one. Online dating hasn't come quite that far, but there's plenty of typically social people using dating sites now (in addition to traditional methods of meeting people.)

but which came first, the chicken egg or the chicken?

good, those fuckers.

@iElvis: since he got his eye poked out?

@Cú Chulainn (Xeraphim): I don't know if that "half" is right. I've never read any of those comic books. I thought Watchmen was unwatchable.

@Wozamil: Yeah, AT&T is bad, but aren't they all? Every carrier is out to make money. And there's no way they're going to please every customer. And there's no way they can avoid hiring some rogue person that is going to be rude to a customer. They're all bad you really should just buy the phone you want and then deal…

I don't understand. If bridging the antennas actually reduces or cuts off reception, isn't the bar drop from 5 to 1 appropriate? Or is the change to display the drop from 5 to 0?

@Facebook: Well I agree with the media conspiracy thing. But I think the engineers who created that portion of the phone should have known better. They're probably fired at this time.

@ImmaLion: Ha ha, it would be funny if they locked everyone in and killed them all. Wait, no, that's not funny. That's sick. Who would say such a thing?

@ScottHartnellsSenseOfBalance: You can't fix conductivity of the frame with software. Software that can create matter hasn't been created yet.

I wouldn't mind having one remote for "all my cars", but they'd need to be separate buttons. Like the article said, managing the locked state globally would not be ideal. It'd be nice to have a single lock all button, too. But I'd still want a single lock button for each. All of this is moot when mentally triggered…

@Habs: that's true. That's a good record, though. I've at least had problems, but I've never been ripped off. When they changed the rule where sellers can't give you bad rep if you've paid in full on time, it got a bit better.