Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's one of those uneasinesses that guys just have to get over. I admit to 'not knowing where to look', which shouldn't be confused with 'unable to not stare'. It's hard to know if it's rude to look away - if it's so normal, surely you should be able to just keep chatting away to the woman normally, but I find I get just as many uncomfortable stares doing just that. Which makes me think it's not just men who are conflicted about whether it's a private act. It's somewhere between, and I can't think of an analogy. What else do we do, that you can do in public, but people are expected to look away? Imagination fails me right now. Closest thing I can think of is 'getting changed in a men's locker room'. It's basically not done to stare at another man doing it, but that's what you're all doing...getting changed in front of each other. But it's not such a good analogy cause it's already restricted only to males.
-
Did you hear about the Irishman who tried to detail a Hummer? Burned his hand on the exhaust pipe.
-
Surely detailing a Hummer is the king of reacharounds. Unless the reached-around has incredible stamina, or, like me, hates reacharounds for reasons explained perfectly by Elaine in Seinfeld (poor access to the equipment), a simple elbow grease comparison would put the Hummer as the equivalent of 20 reacharounds.
-
Paul, my brain and I have to apologise for having read that as 'every girlfriend'...
Me too, I thought it was a really good idea. Celebrate a relationship breakup with real pyrotechnics. It could be very cathartic. Burning an effigy might also help, in areas where burning is still allowed.
-
<threadjack>Was anyone else who has worked in Australia scratching their heads about this?
Putting aside the dubious link between the "new" right to spy on employee's email and security against hacking, I do have to wonder if this right is nothing more than formalization of the existing situation anyway. I knew at least 7 people personally who were summarily dismissed in my last Australian workplace on the sole evidence of such spying, and no legal counsel I've ever heard of said they had any comeback.
Both those practicalities aside, I find it a very creepy move to feel the need to formalize it. They say it's not about reading people's personal communications, but all 7 of the ones I remember were exactly that - people getting fired for openly discussing stuff they were doing that the company disapproved of that had nothing whatsoever to do with work.
As for the justification that it's about protecting the company from attacks, that is just laughable. What employee wants to have spyware or spambots or viruses running on their workstation, why would they refuse the tech staff to look for it, and why can't the problem be solved at the gateway anyway? Employees who really want to maliciously damage the systems hardly need to use email to do it.
Who would have thought in early 2001 that some terrorist nutbars would be enabling your government to allow your boss to fire you for talking about taking ecstasy on the weekend? Yet here we are.
</threadjack> -
A word of advice - don't wear Crocs in a dirty stable.
-
I think it's called carbon credits.
True. And places that spend up large on fossil fuels are more scrappy.
-
Truth Headline: Possum the only fat PM gets.
-
one is always wary of picking up the analogy and running with it a little tooo far.....
Yes, it's hard to think how you could get an environmental designated driver so you can get blotto.
-
Ben - any sudden change will lead to chaos.
That depends what you mean by chaos. If you mean 'rapid change' then sure, that's pretty much a trusim. If you mean 'everything will go to shit', then I don't think you can be sure of that.
81st
The reason for climate control to me is similar to the reasons for not driving drunk. It's not that you'll be sure to have a crash. It's not even likely at all. It's just 'more likely', and the consequences are catastrophic. Of course all opponents of drink driving will do a million studies about how it makes you less in control, how you're more likely to crash. But they seldom give the raw statistics of the chances of a crash, because it might undermine their case to say that a drunk driver has a one in ten thousand chance of having a fatal accident.
Currently we are driving the climate drunk. Which surely increase our chances of a big stack, even though we actually don't know what those chances are.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 944 945 946 947 948 … 1066 Older→ First