What's this site all about then?

The world's biggest armyfat american soldier army

It comforts me somewhat knowing that the brave men and women of the armed forces (fighting any number of pointless conflicts they can't possibly win) are in decent shape.

Yes some people who enrol in the army aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer but that doesn't really matter, what counts is the kind of physical shape they're in and the amount of expert training they've had.

When it comes down to it, a fit and well trained person will out fight a mercenary all day long, keeping Democracy safe for another day.

Now, if the well trained person happens to be a fatty instead of a lean mean fighting machine then Democracy is about as safe as a mild mannered feminist is in an inter-gender boxing match with Chris Brown.

US military personnel are turning to liposuction to remove excess fat from around the waist so they can pass a Pentagon fitness test.

Some service members say they have no other choice because the Defence Department's method of estimating body fat is weeding out not just flabby physiques but bulkier, muscular builds.

Some fitness experts and doctors agree, and they are calling for the military's fitness standards to be revamped.

Defence officials said only a fraction of those who exceed body fat limits perform well on physical fitness tests.

The checks are designed to ensure troops are ready for the rigours of combat. Pentagon officials said the military does not condone surgical alterations to pass the test, although liposuction is not prohibited.

Why are these troops bitching? I don't want a hulking great muscle mass on the front line, I want someone fast and agile fighting for me, not a juice head that gets gassed after running more than 20 yards. You might have big biceps, but if you move in slow motion when in close quarters you're going to get incapacitated very quickly.

If these experts are dead set on creating new fitness standards (maybe because they're running out of decent athletes) then I say create a series of units made up of nothing but big fat fatties and muscle bound idiots. That way any number of rotund computer game nerds who spend hours a day playing as "Tanks" in MMO's can finally put that training to good use.

I really want to go to a cosmetic surgery ward now, not because I need any work done (I'm so handsome I often get lost in my own eyes when staring in the mirror) but because I want to witness the magnificent sight of soldiers swapping war stories before they go into the operating room to have the fat sucked out of their McDonald's inflated arses.

@WhyAllTheAnger

Source: MSN

 

Why did they even bother?stressed-man

There are some things in existence that don't need investigating because they are beyond doubt. The earth is round = fact, drinking sulfuric acid is a bad idea = fact, white people love Nutella = ...actually the jury's still out on that one (I think it tastes like shit).

For the most part though people just accept certain situations because they are either proven to a high standard or so blindingly obvious there is no real alternative.

So if a scientist came up to you and asked if you'd like to take part in a study to see who were the better multi-taskers; men or women you'd tell him to piss off because the answer is obvious right? Well if that's the case then you my friend are a cynic. Bring on the science!

It's not a myth - women really are better than men at multitasking, at least in certain cases, a study says.

Men were slower and less organised than women when switching rapidly between tasks in tests by UK psychologists.

Both sexes struggled to cope with juggling priorities, but men suffered more on average, according to the paper in the journal BMC Psychology.

It says: "The question now is why? And is it all types of multitasking, or only certain situations?"

The researchers hope to encourage more research on a topic which they say has attracted "astonishingly few" studies - considering how often the "women vs men" debate crops up in conversation.

If men really are slower than women, it could have serious implications for how workplaces are organised, says co-author Dr Gijsbert Stoet, of the University of Glasgow.

"Multitasking is getting more and more important in the office - but it's very distracting, all these gadgets interrupting our workflow.

"It could be that men suffer more from this constant switching," he told BBC News.

Tell me about it doc, I constantly find switching between listening to relaxing music to eating chocolate to having a long soak in a bath really distracting, so distracting in fact that I often fall asleep after finishing all the tasks. WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME?!!!!

That mystery notwithstanding it's hard to believe these eggheads spent all this time trying to confirm their theory without doing some more in depth experiments. Actually hold on...I get it! They're playing the long con! They could have gone more in depth this entire time but are looking for some more financial backing so that they can continue to fund their lavish lifestyles.

I should have seen this coming; now that society sees geeks as hot these scientists are using it to their advantage by throwing lavish cocaine fuelled parties in strip clubs filled with hookers. The pieces of the puzzle are all falling into place aren't they. Curse the person who invented tenure.

@WhyAllTheAnger

Source: BBC

 

Diamonds are forever falling from the skydiamonds

You remember that Treehouse of Horror Simpson's episode where Homer wanders through various alternate realities trying to get back to normality? Of course you do, you're not an idiot.

Anyway, there's one reality he lands in that seems as close to perfect as possible; the house is massive and opulent, the family are all well behaved and his sisters in law are dead.

The only downside is nobody seems to know what donuts are so he bolts into another reality just seconds before it starts raining donuts.

That would be a dream situation to find yourself in if you're a fatty or member of the NYPD, but a better one would be a downpour that didn't go stale after 3 days and that held its value for a long long time.

Diamonds big enough to be worn by Hollywood film stars could be raining down on Saturn and Jupiter, US scientists have calculated. New atmospheric data for the gas giants indicates that carbon is abundant in its dazzling crystal form, they say.

Lightning storms turn methane into soot (carbon) which as it falls hardens into chunks of graphite and then diamond. These diamond "hail stones" eventually melt into a liquid sea in the planets' hot cores, they told a conference.

The biggest diamonds would likely be about a centimetre in diameter - "big enough to put on a ring, although of course they would be uncut," says Dr Kevin Baines, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

He added they would be of a size that the late film actress Elizabeth Taylor would have been "proud to wear". "The bottom line is that 1,000 tonnes of diamonds a year are being created on Saturn". "People ask me - how can you really tell? Because there's no way you can go and observe it.

"It all boils down to the chemistry. And we think we're pretty certain."

Dead film stars?! That's your go to image when it comes to people wearing diamonds huh? Not stupid rappers or spoilt socialites, old actors? Feel free to join us in the 21st century whenever you're ready Dr Baines.

I love how these scientists say they're convinced that there are 1000 tonnes of diamonds produced every year on Saturn and Jupiter because their chemistry is sound, but then chicken out by using the line, "we think we're pretty certain". As scientists surely they should know that the term 'certain' is an absolute, something that is established beyond doubt. Not only is it impossible to be 'pretty certain' but it's just plain confusing to describe yourself as doubtful of being pretty certain.

If you're going to claim that Saturn and Jupiter have El Nino's that produce diamonds fit for Cartier you'd better be 100% certain, otherwise you'll end up being about as respected in your field as Andrew Wakefield, Johann Gaspar Spurzheim or Dr Pepper, who's theory of a drink that tasted like shit covered coal would be popular was quickly discredited by anyone with taste buds and/or a brain.

@WhyAllTheAnger

Source: BBC

 

The 5 Most Overrated Films of All Time

The other day someone was telling me that I should express myself more (which makes a change from being told to stop writing altogether then jump up my own ass and die) by writing opinion pieces. After much soul searching I decided to start with the subject I have two degrees in and a lifetime of stored love/resentment for: Films.

But I can't just do any old list of my favourite films, oh no, that'd be too fucking vanilla. So, without any further ado I present to you, "The 5 Most Overrated Films of All Time"...in my opinion.

5. Attack The Blockattack the block

"First-time director Joe Cornish excels in this very funny comedy about an alien invasion on a London council estate" - The Guardian

"...All of which elevates ‘Attack the Block’ from fun creature-feature throwback to this year’s unmissable British movie" - Timeout

"Actually quite shit" - Me

Imagine a film that introduces you to the heroes of the piece by showing them robbing an innocent woman of her valuables and threatening her life before running around like idiots for 80 minutes trying to dodge alien beings that aren't even slightly scary. That's Attack The Block.

Hailed by uber patriotic critics as a cult classic (presumably because it flopped) Joe Cornish's directorial debut is actually unfunny and not even slightly scary. Sadly this promising idea is transformed into discount bin fodder by the age old problem of the film not living up to the hype. Final score 2/5

4. Zero Dark Thirtyzero dark thirty

Oscar candidate huh? Katheryn Bigelow's latest triumph huh? FILM OF THE YEAR HUH?! Fuck right off.

First of all it's long. Really long. Really really long. 2 and 1/2 hours of looking for Bin Laden (via various people who are treated like sign posts on a long country drive) is just too long. Yes I understand that you feel the need to establish characters, processes and progression of time but this film doesn't do any of those things well at all.

It constantly gets lost and disappears on tangents whenever it tries to focus on one narrative theme. One minute it's trying to shock you with torture (which actually isn't that shocking) the next it's trying to show you how people in an office eventually grow to like each other, then it tries to make you believe that the main character has become steely and ruthless due to the pressure of all the bullshit you've just sat through.

It ends with Bin Laden getting capped to the sound of audience apathy thanks to the clumsy and drawn out compound raid scene. Boring, miserable and totally disappointing from start to finish, this is the filmic version of the It's a Small World ride. 2/5

 

3. The Cabin In The Woodscabin in the woods

Aren't horror films supposed to be scary? I mean that's the whole point right, you go and see them for a simple, safe rush of adrenalin. If that's the case then why is The Cabin In The Woods one part basic slasher film, one part Scooby Doo episode and one part poor Office Space knock off?

It just doesn't work, none of it. It's never scary, it's never thought provoking, it's never funny, it's just sad. Credit to Joss Whedon though, he couldn't have brought this out at a better time. Released almost simultaneously with The Avengers this ego project had people falling over themselves to say it was better than the highest grossing film of the year.

As a result of this hype (from respectable journalists to people who's opinion I trust) I went into the film expecting one of the best horror films in years. What I actually watched was a failed attempt at examining horror cliches and trying to come up with a reasonable in film explanation for their existence. That's not what I wanted.

I wanted to be scared and surprised, not left wondering how much they paid Sigourney Weaver to get her to make a cameo that was even more pointless than her other self knowing turn in Paul. If you want interesting horror watch Scream or Shawn Of The Dead instead. 1/5

2. American BeautyAmerican Beauty

1999/2000 was not a good year to watch the Oscars. Along with young, seemingly mentally disturbed Angelina Jolie winning an Oscar for playing a young, seemingly mentally disturbed girl there was also one of the weakest Best Film categories in eons.

The Nominees for best picture were The Cider House Rules (a film barely held together by Michael Caine), The Green Mile (a lazy and painfully average film that was only nominated because the Academy realised they had dropped the ball by not properly honouring The Shawshank Redemption), The Insider (boring), The Sixth Sense (which probably should have won) and American Beauty.

Of course Beauty won that and a whole bunch of other awards it didn't deserve largely thanks to praise from sycophantic idiots who only attend independent film festivals to dribble over anything that isn't a blockbuster. The critics were in love with it to, some went as far as saying that it was one of the greatest films of all time. Well sorry hacks, but I ain't buying that shit.

Yes it has iconic moments like what's her face from American Pie getting showered in rose petals and the annoying, dead behind the eyes kid talking about a piece of rubbish 'dancing' in the wind but it also features really stupid moments like Annette Bening trying to be sexy and funny at the same time, that poor girl from Ghost World getting her tits our for no good reason and the annoying, dead behind the eyes kid talking about a piece of rubbish 'dancing' in the wind.

Sam Mendes even admitted it was over-hyped years later when he said, I thought some of it was entirely justified - it was a little overpraised at the time. Too bloody right Sam. 3/5

1. Love Actuallylove actually

Richard Curtis is a very lucky man. People sort of forget that if Ben Elton hadn't come onboard for Season 2, Blackadder would have faded into obscurity thanks to Curtis' terrible writing. They also seem to forget that he was responsible for The Tall Guy, a film so bland it nearly killed the careers of everyone involved from the director (Mel Smith) down.

You know why people forget those things? Four Weddings that's why. Never mind Mr. Bean or The Vicar of Dibley or Comic Relief, Richard Curtis is seen by many as the saviour of British cinema thanks to the juggernaught that was Four Weddings and a Funeral.

For that one film alone he gets carte blanche to do whatever he wants and no one is allowed to criticise him because that would be blaspheme, well here goes nothing: Love Actually is one of the worst films ever made.

Too many storylines going on at once? Check. One dimensional characters that barely change? Check. Lazy humour? Check. Cliches? Check. Liam Neeson getting out acted by Tiffany from Eastenders? Check. Check. Check. It's just awful. Not only does it get a bye because of the Curtis factor it also falls into the realm of goodwill because it's a Christmas film, and you aren't allowed to dislike Christmas films, then you're just being a grouch who can't get into the Christmas spirit.

I see your game Curtis you crafty sod. People will see through you eventually, they just need to take the rose tinted glasses off first. Final Score: 1/5

@WhyAllTheAnger

 

Home
Archive
Inconsiderate Travellers
Podcasts and Vodcasts