Re: Same goes for dinosaurs
"They are just really good at hiding behind hills."
ITYM "the furniture". Right Bob?
6220 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"They are just really good at hiding behind hills."
ITYM "the furniture". Right Bob?
Please try to comprehend the fundamental difference between Fission and Fusion, thank you.
... given that they seem to be attempting to drive themselves out of business by making their "service" incomprehensibly complicated to use.
(It's still a stupid ruling, though)
For a start you need a really tiny stool...
... there should have been only one!
ITYM "Highlander II - The Sickening"!
I saw it on pirate video and thank the gods I did because it saved me having to queue up for my money back!
Alternatively, the Hitch-Hiker's Guide Film: This film is bad. Really Bad. I mean you just won't believe how hugely, mind-bogglying bad this film was. You may have thought the Highlander II or Waterworld were bad, but that's just peanuts to this film. Listen...
A film that takes Douglas Adams wonderful wordplay and either sets up the joke but then forgets to do the punchline or does the punchline without the setup meaning it falls totally flat. And as for the ludicrous Hollywood Meddling "Arthur and Trillian fall in love" sub plot? Belgium, man! Total swutting belgium!!
... hoist by your own petard?
... although I understand the reason for restricting the "letter crunching" ability, how would it cope with a crossword clue I remember from many years ago which was simply:
Scroll down for the answer...
The answer was "Centre of gravity"! :-)
They should hire John Cleese...
"Don't mention the Olympics! I did once, but I think I got away with it..."
There once were two ladies from Birmingham,
Shall we speak of the scandal concerning 'em?
They're both in the dock
For raising the frock
Of the Clergyman who was confirming 'em!
... after the word "Important" in that headline...
... a fact that seems to elude most media outlets...
@He was the voice of Donkey in the Shrek series.
And I always wondered why Shrek didn't just punch him over the horizon...
"the more electricity we use, the more calories we'll burn"
Damn, I want to play Angry Birds, but my phone's out of charge, someone get me a burger now!
... that the main cause of cancer in laboratory rodents is Scientists!
The point was that...
... ooh, shiny!!
... "Pity we look like a bunch of arrogant and overbearing bastards" thought SZC
It's a lawnmower, not a frickin' shark!
... the first sample is free...
Yes, and keeping your cash under your mattress is so much safer too...
And, to the best of my knowledge, Disaster Area aren't playing in this solar system...
... to be found in low orbit...?
No they don't necessarily...
See this article about the work of a friend of mine who has turned his work in the Galaxy Zoo project into a PhD: http://aliceingalaxyland.blogspot.com/2011/01/doctor-proctor-and-irregular-galaxies.html
Let me give you another example of why smart meters are not a good idea:
At the moment there are a plethora of supply tarrifs, each company has dozens, online, offline, with standing charges or without, dual fuel or electricity and gas separate, fixed price, capped price, different charges for up to X KWh and then over and so on and so on and even with comparison sites it's a bugger of a job finding if you're getting a competitive rate or being ripped off.
Not only that, if you sign up for a tarriff and want to change you may get charged an "exit penalty" or, if the price drops, there have been cases where the company has charged people the higher rate for the *whole* period instead of when the price changed.
So do you think that smart meters are going to make the situation better? Well the answer is "far from it". What's more likely to happen now is that your consumption data is going be used to create an "individually tailored" charging package just for you which is going to make comparison between companies virtually impossible unless you're willing to sit down with a spreadsheet and calculate your exact usage hour by hour, day by day.
Who benefits from this? Not you, sunshine...
... on how to Sanitise a Telephone?
(All aboard the B-Ark...)
Since we now have the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Drawings Acts based on the idea that looking at that sort of thing will "Make You Do Bad Things[tm]", I think it's time that we started a petition to ban Soap Operas since it's clearly been shown that they are a greater danger to society!
... here's a quote I heard a few weeks ago:
"Jesus promised to rid the world of wicked people.
"Odin promised to rid the word of Ice Giants.
"I don't see any Ice Giants around, do you?"
... His Intergalactic Noodly Appendages!
Danger, incoming lawsuit!!
... in Predator?
... also detect a large magnetic anomaly in the region of Tycho crater...?
Just as long as there's an option to breed a giant monster and set it stomping through your neighbour's city!
(And a way of stopping them doing that to mine...)
It goes back much further than that: Urine has been used in leather tanning since time immemorial and the Romans collected it to distill for the ammonia to use in their laundries.
... was that they should be "non-obvious".
Responsible parents wanting to be able to block their kids from buying cigs and booze seems pretty bloody obvious to me!
The sound you hear is the RIAA and the BPI expiring from apoplexy!
Ah, once again the Matt Bryant movable goalposts are back out of storage, not to mention irrelevant personal attacks.
No, Matt, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories and trying to denigrate my arguments like that just shows the paucity of yours.
The fact is that when one side in an argument can (like you repeatedly try to do) move the goalposts and change the argument to irrelevancies instead of dealing with the actual issue that we should have had a discussion into *all* the options available *before* any referendum was ever held, we were given a false choice and straw man arguments (another one was the claim that AV was somehow not "one person one vote") then it's not a case of "an electorate usually gets the politicans it deserves. You reap what you sow", but those who follow the Golden Rule ("He who has the gold makes the rules") decide what we reap from what they sow.
Once again I'll let you get the last word because there's no point in trying to have a sensible discussion with you.
Matt Bryant: "If AV cannot stand up to "old arguments" then it is simply not good enough either."
Oh good grief, Matt. It wasn't about the arguments, it was about the amount of money that the "Say No" campaign (backed by the Tories) could put into straw man advertising ("If you vote for AV this soldier won't get a bullet proof vest") and other ridiculous nonsense such as that contained in your second paragraph.
If you really wanted to summarize the situation accurately you could have said "Let's say someone is wearing sandals and want to wade across a stream. We could have given them a choice between the sandals and ballet pumps, stiletto heels, trainers, slippers, wellington boots, flip-flops, waders, army boots etc etc, but if we did that, they might actually realise that there *are* better options."
Instead, they, like you, offer a false dichotomy of "well it's either sandals or trainers" and use that to set up a straw man argument showing how bad the "only available" alternative is.
The only bit you did get right is that "it does not mean replacing it with the trend au jour is going to be a better solution", but you miss the point that it was never an open and free choice in the first place.
@Matt Bryant: "before you start going on about proportional representation, please look at the mess that has caused in other countries such as Greece" etc etc etc
Ah, the same old arguments that were trotted out when we *DID* have a chance to change a broken electoral system and which were refuted time and again, yet, due to large amounts of money spent on a campaign of FUD and lies ("Vote No to AV or the baby dies") we ended up with an electorate that were confused or scared into sticking with FPTP.
When I first read that article and was pissed off enough to make that OP, I wasn't expecting over 100 upvotes! Thanks everyone.
(And one downvote, it seems, from the Vicar of St Albions...!)
"Individuals need to have private communications, he said, but at the same time there are people who threaten our way of life that have to be stopped. Politicians, however, need privacy to function, "
And there we have Blair, once again, in a nutshell: One rule for them, another for us.
The man who tried to give us DNA databases, ID Cards, ANPR and CCTV on every corner with facial recognition to track us everywhere we go and watch everything we do thinks that he and his cronies "need privacy to function" but *NOBODY* else does!
Share and Enjoy!
I would have been worried if it was one of these...
... of the Matt cartoon from a few months back showing a penguin at the Leveson enquiry complaining about how whether he was feeding, mating, caring for his young, there was David Attenborough and a film crew watching everything...
"if birds carried seeds to Antarctica..."
What, like coconuts...?
Why bother? The chances are a million to one...
Hmm, what's that noise? Sounds like Ulla! Ulla!
"...has claimed victory in the election."
It just would have been nice if he'd not done so *before* voting started...
Well they've got a great location for a secret base!
... infinitely improbable to me.
(Thumb icon because...)
If someone is using a service like Call1899 it comes up as "International" even though they're calling a UK number from another UK number, so you might be blocking a valid call.
Translation: Someone high enough up the food chain was responsible, so we're going to keep schtum and pay the fine with public money instead of sacking the idiot.