More signs

Surely if you can read 'watch for' you can also read 'cars'?

Signs of the times

Odd signs are good for cheap laughs while travelling; "look how un-good thems inglish is, innit?!" etc. So I thought I'd post some of mine here.




And here is one sent in by a friend:

Stay tuned for updates...

Top 5: Kiwis claimed by Australia

Aside from the long-weekend, claiming something as 'Australian' seems to be something of a national pastime amongst my countryfolk, with particular emphasis focussed on anything from the land of the long white cloud.

One recent example is Robbie Dean, the Kiwi rugby Coach who has recently led the under-sized Wallabies into good wins against South Africa and New Zealand itself.

But Robbie is just the latest in a long list of Kiwis claimed as a dinkum-die Aussie. After a very quick filter of the list, I have come up with this Top 5:

5) Russell Crowe

Not really claimed by either side due to general Bogon-ness, and even though he owns the South Sydney Rabbitoes, his first cousin is Martin Crowe (Kiwi cricketing legend). I do like that he throws phones at people though, so will claim him as one of mine.

4) Jane Campion

Dubious as I doubt she has ever claimed to be Australian, but her films are too awesome not to be stolen as our own under the 'Antipodean' banner.

3) Alan Dale

The bolter in this pack, Alan was little known outside his performances in 'Neighbours' until he was picked up by Lost/The OC/Indiana Jones etc etc. Lesser known still was his Kiwi status.

2) Phar Lap

Of course he was Australian...

1) Neil Finn

I could have gone for most of Split Enz here, but Neil has gone on to prominence globally, so it looks better for the sunburnt country to claim him alone.

Top 5: Misconstrued words/names

I was recently talking to someone who was interested in my course and they happened to say "Oh! It's an Adult Education course", which took me back a little.

Am I the only one that things there is something possibly smutty in that? Have I become a victim of our highly politically correct times?

If so, here are a couple of gems that could be misconstrued to the speakers detriment:
5) "Adult Education": Night-school makes it sound no better.
4) "Brown": Its an innocent colour right? Right?
3) "Hang on, my pocket is vibrating": When did this become an innocent statement in the middle of a conversation?
2) "That's quite a mouthful": This list is getting dubious
1) "Come again?": OK, Ive had enough, this is becoming an episode of Graham Norton.

Conspiracy Theorists: Know your place

A little while ago I wrote about conspiracy theorists thinking too much of man-kind and its ability to execute complicated, and even simple, plans.

After a recent encounter at work, Ive now decided that conspiracy theorists probably just think too much of themselves.

This encounter involved myself and a lady from accounts at the coffee machine, which seemed to be out of milk. I tried to open the compartment which houses the milk, though it was locked.

"I wonder why someone would lock the milk up?" I asked aloud

"Well, you could put poison in it!" the woman responded in all seriousness.

This caused me to stop for a moment and ponder why I would want to poison my lactose-friendly colleagues in particular, before I started pondering why I was giving this womans statement far more attention than it deserved, and then started wondering why she hadnt been hit by a bus or come to some sort of end that befalls stupid animals.

Regardless, this interaction can show how people with too little brains can make themselves feel important by adding gravity to a harmless situation.

"But you can't base your theory on one example!" I hear you yell, and you're right. So take Mel Gibson. Sure, he has made some good movies, but the guy obviously isnt the full quid.

His drunken rant about the Jews white-anting the Catholic church is a pretty good example of this, despite the Church not always seeming the vestibule of faith that it should be. The church hasn't sold out to the evil Zionists, it's just another really greedy organisation that preys on the weak.

All this ranting is making me thirsty, its time for a capuccino...

Top Blogs Updated

A while ago I came across one of the most startling Blogs ever, though I may have now found its equal here.

On the subject of which, The Nut Diaries has just started up and is well worth a look.

Question of the Day: What would Darwin think of Led Zeppelin?

For a man that spent over a decade looking at Barnacles, Charles Darwin sure did manage to accomplish quite a lot, even if it wasn't all in his lifetime.

The theory of evolution, in which the strongest evolve to survive was completely groundbreaking and something that I like to reflect upon as I look around me in London today.

For example, the English people seem to have taken to challenging this theory by indulging in one of the Western worlds worst diets and health services, seeing who can survive on a diet of chips and booze mixed with a medical service that just care. Still, the Welsh do seem to be taking it a step further.

Aside from mankind though, music has also greatly evolved since the mid-19th century, which makes me wonder what Darwin would think of (arguably) the peak of musics evolution: Led Zeppelin?

Thought of the day: Conspiracy theorists think too highly of mankind

"When I was young" is a great way to open a sentence. Not only does it make you sound like someone who gets a special parking space at supermarkets, it also means that people relax a little before you continue (as what comes next wont require too much concentration).

So, when I was young, I had to work hard to find ways of procrastinating. I clearly remember being sent into the backyard when I was naughty and all I had to entertain me there was bark. Even now I can remember my favourate pieces of bark.

Kids today, however, have YouTube. Ridiculous. As entertaining as it is addictive, it (like Wikipedia and the rabbit hole) can suck you right in for hours. No need for tree skin these days.

It was during one of my frequent periods of procrastination from study that I found myself in another YouTube spiral that brought me to conspiracy theory videos. Obviously this is where young folks' creativity is now being chanelled (no need for intergalactic bark wars on-line!).

From what I could tell from the conspiracy theory videos, god may not exist but there are people controlling organisations who are pre-determining everything. Now, this may be somewhat true but I seriously doubt that anyone has the ability to pull it off completely.

I work for a large mulitnational company and our network has been smashed this week by one of our more Luddite employees, who accidentally forwarded an attachment in an email to the whole company.

This has affected and morale productivity immensely, but also reminded me of how stupid people actually are, and how planning and pulling off global domination could only be done by an army of robots/zombies/ninjas (and possibly pirates).

If a whopping great company with loads of cash, highly trained staff and excellent technology and practices can be brought to ground by one .jpg, I hardly doubt a government department or some of beardy blokes can set when the next World War will begin.

Hence, I pay as much attention to conspiracy theorists and their prophecies of doom as I do to bark. Actually, bark probably still gets more of a look.

Thought of the Day: An annoying untruth

Being relatively passionate about the environment and development issues, I keep something of an ear to the ground on anything making waves in the field and am routinely shocked at how poorly both sides of the argument are making their case.

For those doubting climate change, if you can't see the link between increased carbon emissions and global warming, then there is little hope for you. But for one last attempt:
Carbon emissions create SMOG
IF smog goes UP,
HEAT gets captured in ATMOSPHERE,
TEMPERATURE increases in ATMOSPHERE,
EVERYTHING in the ATMOSPHERE changes (ice bergs melt, winds alter etc).

And if you dont believe me, try the voice of everyone's lounge room; David Attenborough.

And now, on the other side we have the 'Greenies' or whatever derogatory name you'd like to give them. The shame about this naming convention is that it is often cast over a swathe of people, regardless of the extremities of their views, which can drive well-intentioned people away.

For example, I would be pretty upset with being categorised with Annie Leonard, the presenter of 'The Story of Stuff'. 'The Story of Stuff' is a video detailing how consumerism is bad for the environment, which is true enough. Unfortunately, a lot of the facts that Annie goes into from there are more than misleading.

For instance, she claims that we dont need to replace an entire computer to keep it up-to-date but simply a chip within it. This not only displays a lack of understanding of computing, but also respect for her audience and the truth. By telling one ignorant lie, she completely ruins her entire argument.

What's more, the solutions that Annie presents are optimistic at best (lets all move to communes! etc) and common sense at worst (lets all recycle and buy less). This is another issue with the 'Greenies', that they use preachy solutions (e.g. its BAD to buy STUFF) that arent thought through.

Its similar with the new Prius. Now, I know I have banged on about this before, but what Id like to see is the carbon emissions associated with producing and marketing a new type of car. Wouldnt it be better to convert your current car to a cleaner engine? Even better, shouldn't governments impose taxes related to emissions so that all components of production and usage are covered (rather than make empty promises on food supplies and emissions while enjoying 8-course meals)?

I know that economic theory isnt always that popular left-of-the-centre, but to get any credibility with the middle ground, the 'Greenies' are going to have to lift their game. It might be very well for the likes of GWB to deny global warming, but Annie should know better.

Thought of the day: Heading home, good for business?

Ive begun planning my move back to Australia of late and during the joys of packing and cancelling bills, I came across this article claiming that Business travellers prefer Melbourne to Sydney.

What does this mean? That I wont enjoy Melbourne as much, unless Im on business? I know what I would'nt enjoy, and that's the commute from Melbourne airport to the CBD. Why Melbourne doesn't have a commuter-train is beyond me. Beyond this, why it doesnt have a train from te CBD of Melbourne to Sydney's city centre is also a good question.

I know that Victorians arent that well liked (though who really cares what the rest think?), but surely if the Brits and French can organise to put a train under a body of water between their two capitals, we can too?

That being said, borrowing from French train-engineering might not be the best move, given their history of striking and their lack of success with Connex in Melbourne. The Brits aint in great shakes either, it took me nearly 3 hours to get home from Heathrow the other night, which included an hour on the Heathrow 'Express'.

So perhaps they should borrow from the winning Melbourne model and just forget public transport and simply go for wide streets and good food instead, lord knows it would make a difference to London.

Thought of the Day: Yahoo are tanking

OK, not a great image, but I think you get the idea. The headline reads "Jane McGrath farewelled at emotional funeral". For the uninitiated, Jane McGrath suffered from breast cancer and did a substantial amount of good work to raise awareness and funding for the disease with her husband Glenn through the McGrath Foundation.

Now, while Glenn did play cricket for Australia for sometime, he certainly was not Nathan Bracken, who is pictured. Are the good people at Yahoo deliberately trying to lower their share price by posting stories that are potentially offensive or (at least) misleading/stupid? Stay tuned....