Regulate 2
Much as I don’t like to rely on memes to populate this blog I have to say that this is possibly the best thing on wikipedia ever. If you want the original lyrics for reference they are available here.
Highlights as far as I’m concerned:
This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references.
The perpetrators have taken jewelry and a name brand designer watch from Warren, who is so incredulous that he asks what else the robbers intend to steal. This is most likely a rhetorical question.
Putting congratulations aside, Nate quickly reminds himself that he has committed multiple homicides to save Warren before letting his friend know that there are females nearby if he wishes to fornicate with them.
Nate goes on to note that if any third party smokes as he does, they would find themselves in a state of intoxication daily (from Nate’s other works, it can be inferred that the substance referenced is marijuana).
Nate concludes his delineation of the night by issuing a vague threat to “busters,” suggesting that he and Warren will further “regulate” any potential incidents in the future (presumably by engaging their enemies with small arms fire).
If only wikipedia had been around when the song originally came out; we could have been jealous of the humour of our elders rather than the humour of our youngers.
That said, today has clearly been the day for discovering excellent websites as how can you turn down a website about Tom Selleck, Waterfalls and Sandwiches particularly when each photo has a caption describing the featured sandwich.
Wonderful.
Rubbish terrorist threat of the week 3
Written in today’s Metro by David Hill of the World Innovation Foundation
‘Government business secretary John Hutton’s announcement that Britain could have one wind turbine every half-mile along the nation’s coastline by 2020 is a terrorist’s dream come true. For, if we are to become so reliant upon this isolated energy generation, there is no way to protect them.’
He does go on to make some slightly better points but this just caught my eyes as a really spurious use of the threat of terrorism to argue the case against something he doesn’t like.
To use it as the opening argument of his correspondence really does smack of desperation as well.
As for the WIF, a quick google shows that the only person who really talks up WIF is David Hill. The few others that discuss it either believe it is a hoax or a well meaning, but ultimately flawed organization.
TCSOTD 2007-07-26
TCSOTD 2006-12-28
A heart-warming thank you note
Plastic bottles leak antimony into water over time
New Labour MPs want pay rise, yet also want public to make policies for them
Blears in hypocracy claim over hospital closure protest in her constituency
… BBC take on it here
Man hires ‘hackers’, they post email exchange
… gets caught
… and sacked
… but gains wikipedia page
Whats Wrong with the Music Industry in One Long Sentence
HD-DVD anti-rip encryption ‘cracked’
… Gizmodo’s take on it here
Contributors to today’s TCSOTD: Ben
