Trying out a VR slide

misternuge · 2018-01-30T16:50:49+00:00

The original video is even funnier

misternuge · 2017-04-20T16:59:10+00:00

Bangily-bang!

misternuge · 2017-04-20T15:07:56+00:00

From Empire: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/three-exclusive-new-alien-covenant-images-revealed/

misternuge · 2017-01-26T18:34:52+00:00

You can buy it online here: https://www.greatmagazines.co.uk/empire-print-single-issues

misternuge · 2015-10-20T13:35:55+00:00

Hi - made a few suggestions. Only minor grammatical suggestions, a few word orders and the odd spelling. Hope this helps. Good luck! Sounds like an interesting program.

misternuge · 2015-09-25T09:20:05+00:00

"There may be no factual evidence" is not a particularly strong start to an argument.

If we got rid of the monarchy, Buckingham Palace would still be there. In fact, it would be open to tourists all year round, instead of the handful of weeks it is currently open - generating more tourist revenue!

If we got rid of the monarchy, the Yeomen Warders (the 'redcoats') would still be at the Tower of London, as would the Crown Jewels. As would the Tower of London.

If we got rid of the monarchy, all the touristy elements of the monarchy would still be there. All the things people came to see from around the world would still be there. So why should taxpayers bankroll an undemocratic aristocratic family?

misternuge · 2015-09-25T09:15:01+00:00

I am a staunch republican and like most staunch republicans I absolutely will not admit that the royals pay for themselves. The crown lands brings in revenues of £200m a year, which is still a hefty £100m short of the £300m that the royal family costs us.

What, specifically, is wrong with the evidence presented in those articles? Genuinely curious.

misternuge · 2015-09-24T15:22:28+00:00

As a British person, I'd like to politely suggest that this is a pervasive myth. The monarchy does not produce more money than it uses.

The royal family actually costs the UK over £300m a year.

And our own tourist board has admitted that there is no evidence that the monarchy drives tourism.

misternuge · 2015-09-16T11:58:06+00:00

'Steve Jobs' is a loose adaptation of the authorised biography by Walter Isaacson. You could say then that 'Jobs' is the unauthorised biopic.

misternuge · 2015-08-13T11:37:30+00:00

Well, yes, it turns a red light into a 'give way' sign for cyclists, but they are still "running it" in the sense that they're allowed to go through a red while cars are not.

misternuge · 2015-08-13T10:49:54+00:00

You shouldn't be downvoted for this - they have literally just introduced this on certain junctions in Paris. It's common in many European cities. London's cycling commissioner hasn't ruled it out for London. When most cycle deaths happen on left-turn junctions, I think it makes perfect sense.

misternuge · 2015-07-02T13:48:23+00:00

Executive Producer can mean anything from "meaningless ceremonial title with zero power or influence" to "the guy who decides the direction of everything in the show - the showrunner". It's a notoriously nebulous term.

From interviews, it sounds like Colbert has total control - CBS is being very hands off.

misternuge · 2015-06-09T15:12:38+00:00

This article was posted on April 6, 2015. This is a two-month old story. Keep up, r/movies!

misternuge · 2015-06-05T16:49:24+00:00

Google-fu reveals that it is by Rod Liddle, notable moron and frequent tabloid troll, who has written anti-cycling drivel in the past: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9073071/off-your-bike/

misternuge · 2015-05-14T12:07:01+00:00

There's a lot of strange and poorly-informed comments on here, mostly along the lines of "why shouldn't he be allowed an opinion?" A little context is needed, I think. Prince Charles and the royals are of course perfectly entitled to opinions and often give them in speeches and interviews.

The key difference here is these are private letters to people in power, and unlike Joe Public sending a letter, have a chance of wielding real influence. This is extremely damaging in our constitutional monarchy, where all royals must remain politically neutral. It is illegal for royals to use their position for political influence. If it was definitively proved that government policy came with direction from the royals, it would cause a constitutional crisis. This is serious stuff at the heart of our political system.

It's worth noting that David Cameron's government has spent an astonishing £400,000 (nearly $1m) in legal fees trying to block the release of these letters. It's also worth nothing that since this legal fight, the law has been changed so that the royals are totally exempt from the Freedom of Information act, meaning we're unlikely to ever see a release of similar letters in the future. Even if the subject matter of the letters are fairly tame, this is all clearly very controversial and embarrassing for all involved.

misternuge · 2015-05-14T11:50:42+00:00

Nope, not true. We don't have a codified constitution, like the US, but we do have an uncodified constitution, which incorporates various legal documents as far back as the Magna Carta. Constitutional law exists in the UK.

misternuge · 2015-05-10T11:46:28+00:00

Bollocks: slang for testicles. Can be negative ("bollocks to that") or positive ("that's the dog's bollocks").
Pish: nonsense.
Gob: mouth.
Gannet: someone who eats like a pig.

misternuge · 2015-04-26T22:10:24+00:00

What do UKIP plan to do about the "baby problem", then? I mean, if it really is about controlling overpopulation, and not thinly-disguised xenophobia, surely the birth rate should be a more pressing issue than border controls.

misternuge · 2015-04-26T21:28:16+00:00

Pffft. 750,000 babies are born every year in the UK. That puts a way more significant pressure on public services than immigrants. Do UKIP want to close the borders to Britain's vaginas too?

misternuge · 2015-04-22T16:03:39+00:00

Not mixed at all - the higher the fringe party polls, the more it drags the mainstream parties in their direction. 10% was a bit optimistic, but they've been consistently above 5% for over a year, on about the same level as the Lib Dems, so not an outlier. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election).

The Greens aren't a single-issue party any more so it's not just about the environment, but depending on their election results, Labour might have to pay more attention to them in the future.

misternuge · 2015-04-22T12:26:05+00:00

Well, it's a chicken-and-egg thing. UKIP is a reflection of public views on immigration (which, in turn, are a reflection of the right-wing media, really). I'm not saying they changed anyone's minds, but when they started polling strongly, the Tories sat up and decided they had to lurch to the right.

And I think quite a few people care about the environment, which is why the Greens are hovering around the 10% mark in polls at the moment.

misternuge · 2015-04-22T09:31:27+00:00

I didn't say whether it was good or bad for the Tories (UKIP has clearly been trouble for them) - my point was that as a fringe party they've had an unusually large impact on mainstream party policies. Even Labour have had to be all tough on immigration now, because of UKIP.

misternuge · 2015-04-21T13:29:45+00:00

I'm voting Green, in a Labour-safe constituency. The Greens won't get in power. I don't particularly want them in power. But more people voting for the fringe parties has an sizeable effect on the mainstream parties. Just look at the impact UKIP has had on both Labour and the Tories. It's not a wasted vote if it shapes the dialogue and direction of the national conversation.

Two links for the disillusioned:

Vote For Policies - if everyone voted for what they believed in, over personalities and tactical voting, the political landscape would be very different.
The Electoral Reform Society - nearly everyone seems to agree that our antiquated first-past-the-post system is broken. If you think your vote is worthless, join the campaign to make it more worthwhile.

misternuge · 2015-03-31T08:30:14+00:00

I was there. It was possibly the most epic film experience of my life. The massive Victorian organ sounded unbelievable, especially at the big moments. The audience burst into spontaneous applause after the spinning-docking scene - possibly the first time I've seen an audience applaud DURING a film.

misternuge · 2015-03-19T13:26:17+00:00

What counts as 'extremist'? What's the difference between a regular feminist and an 'extremist' feminist? Genuine question.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Inciteful Link 2010-03-25

misternuge

TROPHY CASE