Lurker > knutjob

I mean Mr bean was basically a kids version of Chaplin for the 90s. It was never intended to be the benchmark by which foreigners view British television.

I wrote a book. It starts out hard and really slow but gets easier. You need to make it a habit until you realise you woefully underplanned and have to start again.

True romance
The big lebowski
Almost famous
Tombstone

They are the easy four I can think of. Fifth would be one of the matrix, con air or something else rewatchable.

There's a ton of films I liked the first time a lot but don't have the same lasting appeal because of the premise. These include memento and usual suspects.

I also like horror but I find it hard to 'love' the films.

Religion of peace

Because no one wants a kid called Azerbaijan

Sandler just reskinned the same movie a bunch of times and people got sick of it.

Wasn't aware of people hating Jim Carrey too much beyond his off screen problems. He just left behind the stuff that made him successful with mixed results.

Is the first one available on any streaming services yet? Seemed interesting when I saw the trailer before the It movie. Like a cross between groundhog day and a slasher.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

knutjob posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Tattoos are now just "this is my favorite pop culture thing! I'm gonna draw it on myself, but permanently!"

Few people ever get actually aesthetically pleasing tattoos. They should be decorations for your body; works of art that give your body some visual style. Not the equivalent of a children's sticker. That's why I never understood the hate for tribal tattoos. They don't represent any sort of dumb "message" or affinity for a brand, they're just cool to look at.

Agreed with you until the tribal point. They were crap, boring and pop culture sticker tattoos for people who didn't know what tattoo to get but got one anyway.

But that's so much more preferable of an unoriginal tattoo than pop culture shit because at least they are aesthetically pleasing. If you're going to be unoriginal, at least have the decency not to be an eye sore.

Agree to disagree. To me they are dated in the same way tramp stamps or barb wire bracelets are.

I have just under 2k but this isn't really my fault. Once I buy a house next year this will improve dramatically.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Tattoos are now just "this is my favorite pop culture thing! I'm gonna draw it on myself, but permanently!"

Few people ever get actually aesthetically pleasing tattoos. They should be decorations for your body; works of art that give your body some visual style. Not the equivalent of a children's sticker. That's why I never understood the hate for tribal tattoos. They don't represent any sort of dumb "message" or affinity for a brand, they're just cool to look at.

Agreed with you until the tribal point. They were crap, boring and pop culture sticker tattoos for people who didn't know what tattoo to get but got one anyway.

Tattoo styles have developed so quickly over the past twenty years that as a culture it has completely fractured into a bunch of different things. A tattoo artist friend of mine told me that this is largely due to widescae relaxation of tattoo business laws and biker gangs losing their monopoly on the shops. Tattoo shops are less intimidating and mainstream society for the most part accepts them. There still loads of clichs though and I'd say that at least three quarters of tattoos suck.

The laurinatus match was a year later. The cm punk momentum fizzled out after del Rio cashed in on him and he lost to triple hhh.

A thumb war

I bought some of them by accident. They had this pixel design and you can only tell what it is from a distance whereas on the shelf in front of me they just looked like random shapes. I occasionally wear at the gym but never outside.

It's sad that people expected them to keep the money.

Nice. Booked my vacation 2 days ago

Amazing scenery, beaches, food. Vibrant party culture. Most people who go there are young back packers, male and female.

Fix your search criteria tc

kevinDK posted...

knutjob posted...

If you scroll to the bottom of the Spotify playlisty it will recommend ten songs at a time not on it

Hmm perhaps this is because I used music from my local (computer) collection, but it seems to be giving me mostly songs that are already on the list...

Even if you hit refresh a few times?

Girls don't want cute.

If you scroll to the bottom of the Spotify playlisty it will recommend ten songs at a time not on it

Eased pressure on fathers to be the sole bread winner in a family, working themselves into an early grave.

Better parenting leave rights (I guess this doesn't apply in america)

Completely disagree but each to their own.

The only movie I've been to see this year was smallfoot and that was with my son. Last year I saw the last jedi with my wife and it and jigsaw alone.

I enjoyed it but I found it frustratingly linear and dumbed down

SaithSayer posted...

knutjob posted...

SaithSayer posted...

People who want to look down on American anything to feel superior are going to. You can't convince them otherwise since they enjoy seeing things as they do.

*posted in a topic full of people shitting on British comedy

So your point is that the thread backs up my point?

No. People shit on America out of spite because they're sick of all the inane 'were no. 1' nonsense. The idea that one nation is funny or not is ridiculous because in any case it is just catering to an audience. The most popular comedy will just cater for the lowest common demonimator. Just look at the list of highest paid comedians that just came out. They're not funny and 9 of them are American but both are mutually exclusive.

I don't understand how people breathe air.

It has no taste.

SaithSayer posted...

People who want to look down on American anything to feel superior are going to. You can't convince them otherwise since they enjoy seeing things as they do.

*posted in a topic full of people shitting on British comedy

Primarily drink water, black coffee and protein shakes. I will have alcohol on special occasions but I don't drink it habitually. I will have the odd can of coke zero if I crave something cold since my wife buys it

Sounds like an average day in ce

True romance
The big lebowski
Almost famous

2017. There was no year zero

The older I get rhe more I find movies are too brief to give me any satisfaction.

Not long tbh. Just get a sofa on zero interest finance and you're pretty much sorted.

I have an anteater. I would be just as happy with a mushroom. No one in real life actually cares.

Except that kid in Italy who just died getting his mushroom.

We don't open them til after Christmas eve dinner

Parents divorced before I was born and were very much working class. However my mom's career took off and my dad made an extremely good investment on a house and they are probably middle to upper middle but still working class at heart

Back_Stabbath posted...

rs = arse = buttocks, anus, general hind area
s = ass = the donkey

people just get lazy over the years and words/pronunciation blend together

I think it was more a rural/urban dialect thing than a laziness thing but yeah.

TarElessar posted...

knutjob posted...

It does help thank you and makes sense from my own experiences. I actually work for Cambridge university now, which gives me an urge to defend it, even though I work in research publication and don't know anything about their undergrad programme.

One final question about the us. At what point are perspective students required to choose their courses? I always got the impression university choice comes first and course is secondary, whereas in the UK it's predominantly the other way around.

I'm currently staying in Cambridge for a research thing, so hit me up if you want to grab a drink and talk about video games or something.
From what I know, you don't actually apply to a set programme in the US when you do your undergrad. For the graduate programme, you need to apply to the Faculty of your choise directly, but for undergrads it's just like a course builder where you can pick virtually anything. As you pay for individual courses in most US undergraduate programmes, it seems to be up to you how much you want to "specialise/optimise" as long as you satisfy all requirements for your degree.
You usually want to put your interests, etc in your statement and it doesn't make much sense to study something entirely different, but in theory it's possible to study a completely different subject (although technically you can do the same at Cambridge if you talk to the right people, but it's more complicated).
In the UK, you can only choose one out of Oxbridge for your application to begin with, so you usually want to focus more on where your course is lectured well, but yeah, you choose both subject and university at the same time (via UCAS these days). In the US, there's no common application system, so it varies from university to university.

I see. Interesting. That seems in line with every American high school film I've ever seen with a college application subplot. Thanks for the drink offer but I'm actually in Poland til January and then my daughter will be in hospital for surgery so I'm otherwise occupied for the time being. Hope you are enjoying Cambridge however.

TarElessar posted...

knutjob posted...

Can you eloborate a little on the UK and US differences? Granted I studied nearly 15 years ago in the UK so it's possible things have changed but I wanted to study analytical chemistry or astrophysics at university so for my a levels I studied chemistry, physics, mechanics and computer engineering. Is this really broader than what American kids would study in their high school years?

The main difference between high school systems is that most high schools in America are approximately 2 years behind, compared to the UK, but as there are just too many US highschools, it is difficult to make generalisations here (which is why I usually only tend to compare universities). Same with universities, so I usually only compare Ivy League with Oxbridge, I know that there is much more like community colleges, etc, but I'm digressing.

A standard undergraduate + graduate programme at Oxbridge takes 4 years (3+1). Let's say, you want to study physics. While in Oxford all of your course options are locked from first year, in Cambridge you have to choose two subjects excluding physics and mathematics in first year (so you have to do useless crap like Materials Science or everyone's favourite Earth Science which literally has you lick rocks to identify their origin), but from year two upwards, all choices are locked as well. You cannot specialise properly even in year four and don't do any research whatsoever, it's purely lecture based.

In the US, undergraduate + graduate takes 5ish years at most Ivy Leagues, last time I checked (3/4+2). You get to choose your courses (it's basically, you need one of courses x, y, z, one of courses a, b, c, etc to get degree X, this is why you can also do majors, minors, etc). However, I think the key point that is criticised is that you usually also need to pick one of a series of Humanities courses, even if you're doing, say, physics. You can double down on that subject and get a minor in it if you care about it, but it's essentially useless. On the bright side, once you have you finish your undergrad years, the graduate programme is /usually/ research focussed (but takes longer than the UK counterpart). Additionally, Oxbridge holds your hand all the way through while Ivy League universities sometimes expect you to do all the work (including some lecture material) on your own.

I hope that makes somewhat sense.

It does help thank you and makes sense from my own experiences. I actually work for Cambridge university now, which gives me an urge to defend it, even though I work in research publication and don't know anything about their undergrad programme.

One final question about the us. At what point are perspective students required to choose their courses? I always got the impression university choice comes first and course is secondary, whereas in the UK it's predominantly the other way around.

TarElessar posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Do you need to complete a bunch of courses that has nothing to with your major/ the degree you're trying to obtain?

It depends on how you define "having nothing to do with".
American / Canadian degree programmes sometimes force you to do humanities courses in a STEM degree, so I suppose the British system isn't quite as bad.
I'll use STEM degrees as an example as I am most familiar with them and it's roughly like that (generally speaking):
US/CA: You want to study Electrical Engineering? Well, you can't do that without learning about American history.
UK: You want to study Electrical Engineering? Well, better learn about civil engineering, fluid dynamics, and, uhm, public transport? And also learn a foreign language because wynaut?
Germany: You want to study Electrical Engineering? Well, you can take courses in robotics, telecommunications, embedded systems, and whatever else you'd like to specialise in.
NZ: Wait, we have universities?

Can you eloborate a little on the UK and US differences? Granted I studied nearly 15 years ago in the UK so it's possible things have changed but I wanted to study analytical chemistry or astrophysics at university so for my a levels I studied chemistry, physics, mechanics and computer engineering. Is this really broader than what American kids would study in their high school years?

I worked in America in my early 20s briefly at cornel and another top university that slips my mind right now, but I was constantly talking to kids about major and minor subjects and it seemed like they had to do all sorts of wacky topics to make up their final score. The most 'out there' class I took at university was radiology.

Yes. I'm very high functioning and it bothers me if I don't.

Looks like she just came 3rd in a miley Cyrus lookalike contest

It's not weird. I've been to 100s but I've also been years between concerts just because I got out of the habit so it's not odd to me that someone could never be in the habit to begin with.

First paycheck? Not really since it was pure disposable income.

Only when I'm a guest

JE19426 posted...

Hexenherz posted...

This might be a dumb idea but couldn't they do something like take a helicopter for fighting wildfires and scoop the drone up in the tarp that the chopper drags?

It's the UK, I doubt they have any helicopters for fighting wildfires.

We just use rain.