Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/12/comments/
Elephants take over transport network, mandate sex parties
Getting drunk with horny elephants. What could go wrong?
Comments Researchers at San Diego State University have found that, contrary to the general rule that men get more heavily plastered at parties, women tend to booze more if the parties involve sexual themes and fancy dress. Why? They don't know, but you all agree that they must have had fun trying to find out:
Dr Clapp ? Investigating drunken chicks at sexually themed parties ? For real ?
The Other Steve
I'd love to see the expenses claim.
4 Bottles of Vodka
2 slabs of beer
8 Vicar costumes.
All from the university research grant!
We have geeks that want to get drunk and attend parties. That's good.
They have the social grace of a dyspeptic buzzard -sorry El Reg. That's bad.
They want to tipple a bit. That's good.
They can't afford it. That's bad.
They want to go to sex parties. That's good.
Sex parties are expensive. That's bad.
Why not get the department to fund attendance by geeks at sex parties?
Aren't geeks smart?
I've been invited to fancy dress parties. And I've been invited to sexually themed parties.
But I can honestly say, I've never heard of a fancy dress with a sexual theme party.
Black tie mandatory, crotchless optional?
It seems rather simple to me. They're taking averages here, meaning at the more tame parties you will have a mix of society with a few of the heavier drinkers (women drinkers I mean) that are a smaller minority and more of the conservatives who don't drink as much no matter what the occasion. At the sexually themed parties you tend to weed out the more conservative women who don't attend, with the remainder being the heavier drinkers.
It's a bit like they would claim puzzlement if attendees at a Kiss concert were more likely to have their faces painted and wear black leather. They just need to get out more and taste the life they're trying to sample out of context.
Mozilla was left with egg on their face after an offensive viral advertising campaign was leaked. The company quickly pulled the campaign, which featured a variety of comparative statistics, including the facts that Firefox users were less likely to have cancer or heart disease than Internet Explorer users. Oddly enough, these did not go down too well.
What worries me is were the hell they got the stats from the first place!
Hi do you mind answering a few questions
Do you have cancer?
Does anyone in your family have cancer?
Do you use Mozilla?
What a bunch of morons....
Cancer jokes are the best jokes ever. Take for instance this number;
What does the blind deaf and retarded kid get for christmas?
So... Being forced to use IE rather than Firefox at work means I can sue my employer for the added health risk?
Here's a thought:
Older people are on the whole more set in their ways and less likely to try something new (Say for example, install firefox when IE has been fine for them).
Older people are more likely to live with other old people (husband/wife, care home etc?)
Older people are more likely to have cancer.
When you think about it it's pretty damn obvious.
My question is what Marketing Guru thought to himself; "Cancer! Yeah, that's funny! And Heart Disease - they just crack me up!"
Next up from the same Marketing Maven: fake stats on how browsers affect a users use of racial slurs - with loud examples!
I'm sure it will be hilarious.
Our backwards and oppressive government has rejected a petition to allow elephants to be sold in UK pet shops. This blatant disregard for the opinions of elephant-lovers up and down the country had you rightly up in arms. Elephants for all!
The winning idea on the second episode of BBC Radio 4's splendid "Genius" show was for the breeding of miniature elephants as pets. HMG are rejecting this idea too soon. They would do better to pass it on to the chaps in white coats at the genetics lab.
Miniature elephants is the way forward. Personally, I want one that will fit in my palm and can compete with my tortoise in sporting events.
Bloody nanny state. If a responsible pet owner makes provisions to care for an elephant then what right has the government to stop them?
Elephants have been kept as domestic animals for thousands of years, they can be trained to work in the building industry and in agricultural. I think this is all part of a bigger conspiracy backed by the manufactures of farm machinery and lifting equipment. If I where Jack Smithies I would be keeping one eye out for the Black Helicopters.
This could be our way out the energy crisis. Elephant based transport, machinery and heating. I see school wagons pulled by elephants taking children to school, I see goods being hauled by elephant, I see lifting work done by elephant, I see sales execs speeding down the M5 on elephant back and I see no congestion charge being applied to elephants. Bring them into the house in the evening and they'll provide heat with their mighty bodies. When they get old you can kill them and eat them, lots of meat there. Oh yes, elephants are the future all right. Just a shame the government is too dumb to even see the start of it. Now, where is that elephant icon?
they may start off as ordinary family pets, well, as ordinary as an elephant could be, but give them a few years and there'll be an underground army of discontented elephants ready to rise up against their human keepers in a plethora of pachyderm proletarian protest.
Thankfully the Broon govt has had the foresight to avert a terrible future dominated by brutal elephants forcing humans to haul heavy logs through forests and to slave in peanut mines.
Paris as my icon 'cos she said that mine was like an elephant's trunk. In the dream I had at 7 this morning.
A Polish teenager allegedly used a modified TV remote control to take control of the tram system in the city of Lodz, causing twelve people injuries and four trams to derail. He faces charges of endangering public safety.
Give him a job! OK: he might be a bit young - but he sounds like someone with a brain that works.
and we're all worried about the security of airlines and nuclear powerplants, changing the signals/points for a 60 -> 100mph train would appear a far better terror tactic.
As it gives a quad whammy, train crash means
b: puts a line out of service until fixed and complete investigation done.
c: probably hard to trace if it were possible and the fact that it was intentional may not come to light until it had happend several times.
d: actual fear of using transport network, bombs are far fetched as they're reasonably hard to make and can only be used once, where as a device to change switches or signals, well that'll work as long as you have batteries. You never know when it may go horribly wrong.
Course it may not be possible at all with the UKs aging network, you probably need to move a lever or something.
Anonymous Coward, reading your quad whammy list has made me realise that this strategy has been in place for years in the UK.
Duncan this is a tram line not a train line, the difference is trams are slow moving and hence can stop very quickly (unlike your average train). Therefore I'd assume that the system is totally decentralized (and so cheaper), I'd guess the tram drivers have infrared controls within their trams which they use to switch the points. Through the use of basic procedures etc that the tram drivers follow I imagine the system works very well with minimal costs. The worst case is that two trams end up on the same track but this isn't a problem as long as the drivers are paying attention as they'll notice the other great big tram and stop in plenty of time. All this saves having complicated computer controlled networks, expensive cabling and computer errors.
I imagine this is what the orginal designers thought and they had a point. Unfortunately for them they didn't consider the security implications. At the end of the day though I'm not sure what a sensible solution is, a set of armed guards at every point maybe? Anything less and there is still plenty of options of physical intervention to manually change the point.
It's so sad when a promising youngster goes off the rails
Yes it is. Expect numerous forthcoming editorials decrying how model railway sets are making children lose their sense of reality and leading them to take over transport networks, treating the helpless people within as mere playthings. The Reg: It's not hysteria if we're doing it. ®