Quote by Trowzaa

That was the one I was originally looking for, but couldn't find it. Thank you.
I've come to the conclusion that nowadays laugh tracks take away the realism in sitcoms and when the characters pause for the canned laughter it somewhat gives away that they know they're in a fictional TV show.

Because that's totally the only thing sitcoms do that gives away that it is a tv show...
I think we should take back the name blue monday and instead make it into a day of listening to cool blues music.
Quote by Pastafarian96
^ this, learning to hand craft beautiful wooden creations is utterly enthralling, especially if you can make money out of it.

Nick Offerman supports this message

Or if you prefer something creative that requires less physical exertion, learn to draw or paint.
Quote by ultimate-slash
However, Gandalf is Ian McKellen and therefore also the correct answer.

However Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden don't need no actor so is the most correct answer.
I've just had a couple of Jehovah's witnesses knock on my door and ask about my beliefs, to which I responded that I was not religious in the slightest (but found to my dismay that I was far too polite [or just too lazy to start an argument this time on a monday] to tell them my thoughts on why Superman is a better role model than Jesus). It just made me wonder: how effective can knocking on someone's door and shoving your religion in someone's face be as a method for converting people? Does anyone here know of anyone who has opened the door to Jehovah's witnesses and become religious because of that conversation?
The vast majority of wars, started by men. Because true manly men know how to stand up for what they believe and kill everyone who doesn't share that belief.
The kid quite clearly isn't in a position to make that choice. Regardless of her level of maturity, if she believes that "chemotherapy will do more damage to her body than the cancer will", she clearly doesn't understand the seriousness of cancer (100% chance of death if left untreated).

Similarly, their intention to "seek alternative treatments" suggests a lack of basic understanding of medicine or a belief that they know better than trained medical professionals. The doctor would have told them all of the treatment options. If there were options in this case other than chemotherapy, the doctor would have offered them. Unless her mother wanted to get the kid on a clinical trial for a new treatment (which would have made it into the article as an important part of the case, assuming the doctor had objected to it), then her mother is basically claiming to know better than the doctor which, unless she also has an M.D. that isn't mentioned in the article, is not possible.

There is also the matter of how much the kid's way of thinking is influenced by her mother. While it's a far more subjective matter than how much medical knowledge they have, it is entirely plausible that the kid's opinion came from her mother and if left to do her own research without outside influence, she would have chosen to trust her doctors.

If the kid had displayed that she had researched the matter, understood that chemo was her best chance at survival, and come to the conclusion herself that she was willing to die or take the risk of a treatment with worse odds or a clinical trial, then I would say that her decision should stand. Since her and her mother have only shown that they are quite ill informed, then the court was right.
I almost forgot, the Orcs trilogy by Stan Nicholls (available in omnibus form). Gives a very interesting new take on not just Orcs but quite a few other fantasy standards too.

Which also reminds me, Markus Heitz's Dwarves series too.
The Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb. Then the Liveship Traders, the Tawny Man and the Rain Wilds. Best series I have ever read.
How does it feel to define your identity using posts by some butthurt fifteen year old whining on Reddit about how this girl at school doesn't like him?
Quote by Baby Joel
mercury is pretty cool. Krypton as well.

Krypton's not a metal.
Or, let’s say you buy tickets to a concert. On the day of the event, you catch a cold. Even though you are sick, you decide to go to the concert because otherwise “you would have wasted your money”.

Boom! You just fell for the sunk cost fallacy.

Sure, you spent the money already. But you can’t get it back. If you aren’t going to have a good time at the concert, you only make your life worse by going.

There is a massive flaw in logic here. Who says you won't enjoy the concert because you have a cold? I for one would rather be ill at a gig than ill at home and miserable about the fact that I am missing out on the gig. I am losing nothing by going to the gig and gaining nothing by not going.
Quote by Fisheth24
So Mail readers?

Yep. And Daily Express readers.
In the UK, there'd be a bunch of people who refuse to put money into healthcare because "I'm not paying for those immigrants to come over here and get surgery on our NHS", then they'd get cancer and complain that there are no doctors to treat them. They'd do the same for Jobseeker's Allowance.
It's clearly the Chuckle Brothers.

And why the hell write 2k14 when it is no more difficult than writing 2014?
I'm sick, teach me how to overcome this contagion.


- People sharing remedies.

- People frantically searching for something to cure them as a last resort.

- People helping quarantine noobs.

- Occasionally, people laughing at quarantine noobs quarantine mistakes.

- General outbreak talk.

- People posting Ebola-Chan memes (making fun of the above noobs).


Wrap remedies in Spoiler tags.

Don't bash other treatments you deem as "Not scientifically proven." They may be unproven but we're desperate, dammit.

Just give me the honey, and no one here has to get hurt. I need my fix, dammit.

I'm the "Informed enough to know that there is no scientific merit to the myers-briggs test" type.
But what is the frequency, Kenneth?
Quote by Deliriumbassist
I'm going to find my wand and use alohamora on her legs.

If you don't know where your wand is then you aint opening anything. Might want to get someone to use engorgio on it, make it easier to find.
Quote by Arby911
How about if you answer the question? Where does the initial funding come from?

Ah sorry I misunderstood your question. The initial funding comes from the current welfare system. A single, flat rate paid to everyone needs a lot less staff, computer power and office space to organise than the current case-by-case system. Admittedly the initial job losses are a slight downside, however they would have the basic income to fall back on until they find new jobs (which should be easier once the economy adapts to the new system as I explained).
Quote by Arby911
Where do you think this money would come from? Who, exactly, provides that 'extra 10K' to everyone?

Government doesn't create wealth, it merely takes it from one group and gives it to another.

You don't appear to have thought this through?

You don't appear to have read the full paragraph. Increased income creates increased spending. Increased spending means increased VAT paid to the government, and bigger businesses who then pay more tax. This money from VAT and tax on businesses then goes back to the people through this basic income.
I'm all for it, for a number of reasons.

1) In Britain at least, the benefits system is pretty awful. Everyone complains about "lazy people sponging off taxpayers", but no one cares about the honest people stuck in a bad situation who get screwed by the system. People on Jobseekers' allowance have been known to get their benefits cut because they missed a job centre appointment to attend a job interview. People have had their benefits cut because they couldn't afford the bus fare to the job centre. People with disabilities are judged as 'not disabled enough'. This system would get rid of all that, reducing the stress on unemployed people who are getting screwed by the job centre's regulations. (It should also get rid of the concept of benefit scroungers, as people with jobs will be getting the exact same money from the government).

2) It would improve working conditions for people on lower wages. Minimum and low wage workers would have a guaranteed safety net to fall back on if they lost their job, so employers would be forced to treat their employees better as employees would be in a better negotiating position without the threat of losing all of their income looming over them.

3) it would improve the economy. As everyone would have an extra 10k per year, they would feel more comfortable spending more, allowing businesses to grow and making the government more money in VAT.

4) To rich people, it is effectively a tax refund. It may make them quit whining about how much tax they pay.

EDIT: and 5) it would improve access to higher education, as people who would otherwise not go into university because of fears of being unable to support themselves would have enough money to get by. The same goes for people who want to pursue charity work, or become an artist or writer, or be a full time parent, or do anything else that would normally mean they wouldn't earn (enough) money or have the time for a day job. Or anyone could take part-time work to supplement their basic income and have more time for their hobbies, also meaning that more jobs would be available as one full-time job becomes two part-time jobs.
Well I shot the sheriff.
Quote by Burgery
breh, i know the mythology. thor isnt a chick

In some versions of the mythology he became one once in order to marry one of the Jotunn so he could get his hammer back, though other versions say he just dressed up as one.
Quote by Burgery
but the mythology..

You know in the mythology both Odin and Loki became female for a time, right? Hell, Loki at one point became a female horse and got pregnant.
Quote by CL/\SH
I think the world should be more concerned about Peter Parker being dead

How many times is that now? Has his death count caught up with Cap's yet?
Quote by metacarpi

However, I then saw the design for the new Thor. Top heavy blonde bombshell type? You better believe it!

Feels like a bit of a swing and a miss for me - here was a real opportunity to finally portray female comic book characters in a strong, positive light. But what we get is more misogyny.

She is wearing the exact same armour as male Thor. Yes, she has boobs under the armour. Dunno if you've noticed, but it's quite common for women to have boobs under their clothing. All they did was adapted Thor's armour to fit over them. It's not like they went "Let's give her huge breasts and a suit that can barely contain them." Unlike a certain other comic publisher.

Apply for the job, only worry about whether to take it or not if you actually get offered it. Employers generally allow you time to think about it when offering you a job, so worry about it then. If you don't get the job you're worrying for nothing. If you do, then you've had a chance to see the university and meet the people there so you can make a bit more of an informed choice. Might the boss is a complete dick. Better to decide after you've found out things like that.
Quote by rootsofmy
I wonder what would happen if I tell you that observing is also known for changing random numbers generator's results according to the observer's will.

What would happen is that someone would request credible sources that describe thorough experimentation and data which supports that conclusion.
I gave a person a fake phone number rather than just telling them I had no interest in talking to them.

I am the villain of the story.
I might be up for this. Gives me an incentive to actually perfect the four Star Trek themes.