Actually, keeping kids in the cellar reminds me of this
, which makes me sad
Uh, justification time! He was just wondering how they managed to run it to their room - some building materials screw wifi up and running ethernet through solid concrete, well
We actually get better reception by the air vents than just above the router, here. We also run ethernet and phone through the same holes (Though 'phone', nowadays, actually runs to a DSL modem)
lazarus89 wrote:Isn't it too soon after Creepy Austrian Guy's crimes came to light to be making jokes about storing children in cellars?
Not everyone reads such stories (I avoid them, they depress me), and anyway, I practicaly live in my basement, by choice, and at my dad's house there are three bedrooms down there, so, kids in the cellar or basement isn't that unusual, just, forcing them to stay down there is.
Sprocket wrote:You're NOT old enough, now go listen to your abstinence only sex ed class and say 78 hail Mary's for that comic!
Abstinence-only sex ed classes miss certain ideas: Like a rational explanation of the risks, etc. My school stressed abstinence as the best option, but still covered various other thing since it's going to happen no matter how much you stress it. We also covered drugs, and had visitors of all sorts of backgrounds - someone who suffers from AIDS, a doctor specializing in STIs, and, in probably the strangest but more interesting cases, an acupuncturist. Add all to that a pair of instructors who knew what they were doing (which doesn't just mean knowing your subject, it also means knowing how to communicate!) and I think that class actually convinced more people that abstinence until in a stable relationship (not marriage, necessarily, but a relationship where you might as well be married, if you know what I mean with that...) was a better choice than an abstinence-only class would have, while at the same time covering things to try to keep yourself safe if you decide not to.
TL;DR: Abstinence-only classes are self-defeating.
kerohazel wrote:It's an awesome responsibility. Good thing that it (usually) requires the consent of two people, similar to how you need two people to turn their keys simultaneously to order a nuclear strike - at least in the movies.
I imagine that it probably requires more people IRL - any one of the various people involved in targeting, prepping for launch, and launching it COULD at least delay it. Of course, they'll just get replaced, but still.
Dobblesworth wrote:The actual content apart from that is hilarious though. Perhaps the sequel will involve them attempting to set-up a dual boot on the system - gender/personality/sexuality/memory - take your pick.
Thank you for giving me a metaphor for bisexual that works - I have no idea why I never thought of that before. Saying it's like dual-booting a machine gives certain impressions - in one mode or the other is the important one - that some people seem to miss.
armorsmith42 wrote:Apparently my girlfriend's father was disappointed when he discovered that they did not vaccinate babies at the hospital.
"What! It doesn't come pre-formatted with anti-virus?"
I once saw a baby chewing on a Norton t-shirt. It was hilarious.