chrisp65

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHuJAC_XbhQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-WXzz9cZLc

will Portsmouth naval base soon be full of discharged seamen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPfmNxKLDG4

fears that people wouldn't piss on St Andrew's if it was on fire proved unfounded

perfectly possible, the garden next to mine at my last house had enough for placid Brian to be self sufficient and turn a modest profit (edit: this too was in tropical South Wales)

nah not a problem if you can get moody fags I'm fairly conident that there will still be illegal marijuana available for the poor and the groovy

yay for cake! scientifically proven fact best ever version of 'I will survive'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting legal drugs could possibly ever be a bad thing and I certainly don't believe we should concern ourselves with the welfare of others or potential consequences. I'd never be so uptight as to suggest drug caution on a hip place like an internet chatroom.

well, I was just kind of thinking of story arcs in our modern culture There is pressure to legalise marijuana, the state is moving ever closer to making it (and other drugs) legal. At some point I expect somebody that would have previously made money with appearances on Springer to get Saul Goodman to claim they only started sucking 60 a day when the state legitimised it. Had it not been ok by the state, they wouldn't have done it. Therefore, it's the state's fault they now have 'x' which was most likley caused by this state endorsed habit.

at what point in the future will the first state payout be to somebody claiming ill health due to taking legalised pot?

that's essentially what several of the reports say that I've read they could fix the leaks, which is on going un sexy and a pain in the nuts, or, they can just build another reservoir and catch 60% of the water there to pipe around

Just wondering where you got your information from? my own gut feeling initially, but 2 minutes on google got me the Guardian from 2012 and an OFWAT report October 2012: From the Guardian, May 2012: Don't be too impressed with the water companies when they say they have been working hard to plug the holes in their pipes. I wrote my first news article about water leaks back in 1980 for a long-forgotten magazine called Municipal Engineering. A study published then – I still have it – put the national water leakage rate at 24%. And nothing has changed. The latest statistics for the four biggest English water utilities show Severn Trent losing 27%, Thames Water and United Utilities (supplier to northwest England) 26%, and Yorkshire Water 25%. In the case of Thames Water, which serves drought-plagued London, that is almost 200 litres, per customer, per day. Ofwat, ever the industry's apologist, claims leaks have been cut substantially since the mid-1990s. Which is true – but they rose before that, during and after privatisation of the old water authorities in 1989. And recorded losses today are marginally high than they were a decade ago – about 3.4 billion litres a day. That would fill quite a few hosepipes. I wouldn’t be so naïve as to expect a newspaper to have facts, but it is backed up by OFWAT’s own commissioned report here: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/sustainability/waterresources/leakage/ This October 2012 report suggests that whilst leak rates were getting better through the early 2000’s, by 2009 they’d fallen back to where they were 10 years earlier. Briefly, to paraphrase, there's a formula to work out if it's worth fixing leaks, most water companies usually have no supply issues so don't even bother doing the formula. Whilst not bothering to calculate your leak rate contradicts the 'evidence' in the newspaper that quotes per centages, for the purposes of a footy chatroom, it must be sufficient evidence. Plus, I drive around a lot and for the last 2 years everything has either been very green or under water.

hey, we don't need that sort of reason or common sense around here thank you very much

there is no lack of water in the UK there is a lack of incentive (easily gained short term profit) for private water companies to bother upping their game

To be semi serious for a brief second, it is a real issue, evaluating what good will come from investing billions and trillions in anything (space as an example), when there will always be immediate earthly needs. Just as, on a much smaller scale, HS2 is going to suck in all that money, all those billions (potentially over £100B by the time of completion) and to what end? Is the objective to get to Mars, or even just to get to Birmingham? Or is the objective to create employment and wealth, knowledge and experience? You could build a lot of hospitals and you could distribute a lot of anti malarials and peanut paste for a few billion dollars. Then what? A generation don’t get malaria, a generation doesn’t die but we haven’t built a technology and education base. For that reason, I can understand India’s decision. Unfortunately, I may be being naïve and generous. I suspect that what India really wants, is a seat at the table with the big boys, and nothing looks better at a meeting than a big shiny car.

I knew what you meant (and I completely agree) which is why my response was directed solely towards chrisp so what's the max number of poor people or the minimum health care allowable for a country wishing to spend money on space stuff? looks a bit arbitary to me

11.0 A large secret full 1:1 scale moon set, somewhere in the desert. If you find it, they kill you.

is nobody going to lecture me on the pens that write upsde down?

1.0 Teflon 2.0 Pens that write upside down 3.0 Nice pictures looking back at earth 4.0 I'm struggling now 5.0 Probably kept a bunch of nazi's off the streets in the 50's n 60's so that was largely good 6.0 £139 GPS instead of £5.99 maps 7.0 I'm about done 8.0 erm.... 9.0 did I mention those pens? 10.0 dried food sachets

you're missing the bigger picture, we might gain some super tech out of this if it hadn't been for the trillions NASA spunked in space* we wouldn't have, er, we wouldn't, er, teflon! We wouldn't have teflon to help the ladies with the washing up. * always wear a visor

Satay? Chinese? 'chinese' is a type of takeaway food store that is run by somebody that looks vaguely 'chinese' you will never see these people outside of their shop you will never see deliveries made to their shop you can only presume that when they start their business they have 15 years of supplies in a freezer out back they make the most wonderful lunchtime chips, fishcake and curry sauce it's traditional british fare, but tastes a bit chinese they will also happily sell you a poppadom or a belgian sausage do not go into such a place hungry or drunk, you will reel off four or five dishes you know you like and some how, you've spent £25 and won't even open two of the cartons 'chinese'

re the Shard: to be fair, I don't think even the design team really think its anything other than big and pointy

not serious

where's that nice central library?

If it's referring to Huey, I do wonder if he's had some sort of midlife crisis. He used to have a lovely little lunchtime radio show on R6, played a bit of funk a bit of soul etc.. Lately, across Sunday lunch, he'd taken to playing the worst of 'rock'. I don't like Van Halen at the best of times, I certainly don't want it Sunday lunchtime. Anyway, I note they've bumped him to Saturday morning.