flump - verb
To curl up in bed after a hard day.

schnorla - noun
The unintelligible sounds made by a person who, experiencing particularly enjoyable fussing, is squirming slightly.

naskauld - noun
A slight but irritating cold draught eminating from an unknown corner of a warm duvet.

linkle - noun
The shine in a partner's eye that expresses admiration without needing to verbally express the sentiment .

browtaggy - noun, adj.
The loud, pointless noise that is continuously emitted from a hen or stag party.

glastex - noun, adj.
Any translucent or transparent plastic, such as plastic bags or drinks containers in pubs that don't serve in glass.

cubickapple - noun
The general hubbub of typing, phone calls and chatter in an open plan office.

ignoratorium - noun
A place of solitude or isolation rarely frequented by daylight esp. the bedrooms of adolescent teenagers.

trylence - noun
The ambient noise of a large exam hall during an examination.

longbolsh - noun: perj.
A long-winded anecdote that attempts to socially elevate the speaker above their audience, told in such a way to be found objectionable.

scrout - verb
To flee a situation in a rapid and inelegant fashion.

whaggish - adj., adv. ( +ly )
With charm, energy and youthfulness; sometimes used pejoratively to indicate lack of experience.

schroompht - ono.
An object moving fast; occasionally with a sudden, destructive termination.

hackophony - noun
A sub-genre of electronic music where the artist creates sound by interfering with the internal electronics of a sound creation device (such as a child's toy). See also: circuit bending

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/shortcuts/2013/jan/28/parliament-rifle-range?CMP=twt_fd


My country, the United Kingdom, has some quirky history thanks to its venerable age. I'd like to describe Britain as being a "vintage" nation. For example, there is a fully stocked-out rifle range under our main legislative building - the Houses of Parliament. One of our parliamentarians has recently questioned whether this is entirely suitable. Below is my response to the article. Caution: Americans might not like what I have to say.

PS. Parliament rocks:

Especially at about 8 minutes in.


Should the tax-payer foot the bill? No, that money should be spent elsewhere. Belt-tightening, right?

Rifle shooting taught me a different mindset; it genuinely became meditative. It's a time-honoured tradition that transcends any one particular culture. It's a mindset that continues to help me to this day. I respect the power and lethality of a firearm, I do not fear them. But I do see that fear when some people talk about guns. I hear people fearful for their lives, their livelihood and their families. We even give mistakes catchy nicknames to help us develop the fear: stray shots, ricochet rounds and friendly fire. The media, by and large, does not help mitigate the anxiety surrounding guns. The fear I see is reflected in the decisions made by legislators, they make foolish choices when they act and often they decide to pursue no action whatsoever. In no way should fear ever be the basis for legislation regarding firearms.

The "founding fathers" of the United States were scared of many things in 1791, principally: reconquest by a European power, a long-term counter-measure against their own government in the future, and violence against citizens exercising the criminally racist doctrine of Manifest Destiny (incidentally, fuck 19th Century America). They were terrified that their small professional army wasn't going to be able to defend against perceived threats to the expansion of their nation. The USA currently operates the most powerful armed forces in human history.

In response to their fears, the founding fathers gave license to arm a militia and for that armament to "never be infringed." This has since evolved into the right for every civilian to carry firearms about their person without heed to the purpose for that armament and without proper training. Every attempt to meaningfully restrict access to lethal weapons has been batted away in the name of that iffy amendment made two centuries ago. They're all frightened of what will happen to the crime statistics if they take away the guns for the people. They're probably right. The tremendous policing effort required to reassure citizens of their safety is not forthcoming. There is now virtually no way to disarm the USA. The murders will continue.

We should not be ashamed of firearms but what we do with them is another matter. Where there is shame, there are secrets. If our government spent more time in the presence of weaponry and their terrible capacity to hurt the world, they would understand the nature of not only the guns but the men and women that use them on a daily basis. Maybe they would finally acknowledge that our celebrated history, our own British heritage, was built on words formed from gunsmoke. Maybe we would not have so many fucking wars.

Should the tax-payer foot the bill? No, that money should be spent elsewhere. Belt-tightening, right?

http://observer.com/2013/01/the-luxury-rental-girlfriend/

I have had long conversations about American attitudes towards sex with my Californian then-girlfriend. Her opinion was that, on the surface, American society is surprisingly closeted about anything that amounts to casual sex or an "easy" relationship. There is an expectation that marital stability is the primary goal for most adults which is, let's face it, contrary to how things actually work. I think this article, in part, is a product of that.

The focus of the article throughout, laid bare in the opening paragraphs, is what the man wants. Men's motivations. The author completely neglects to develop any connection with the second and equal partner in all these relationships - the woman. I'd imagine top of the list for they would like during their employment is "not a rapist" followed by "financial remuneration." Perhaps these women have been forced into a life of prostitution by unspeakably cruel circumstance like so many are. However, considering their metropolitan jet-setting lifestyle laid out in the article, I suspect these particular escorts are having sex for money largely because they enjoy sex and they enjoy money.

Generally speaking, and I'm sure we can all think of a handful of exceptional cases, marriage is not based on one person wanting vast sums of money from the other. Love and affection is shared between the couple and that is enough to justify their particular brand of give-and-take. That is not the unilateral desires of a man, as the article would imply, that is a consensus reached by two people. I would suggest that swapping out "love" for "cash for each evening" would make for an unstable marriage. However, escorts and their clients do not want to be married to each other. The relationship they share is separate from marriage, it is a different dynamic. Similarly. suggesting that women are either a "Wife in Training" or a hooker is a biased misrepresentation of reality to the point of foul ignorance. To look at casual partners through the eyes of normalised monogamy is to unfairly demonise them through arguments that absolutely do not apply.

And it's complete horseshit this article is male-focused.
Screw you, Lisa Taddeo if that is your real name.

In the USA, the Xbox 360 has outsold the Nintendo Wii for both 2011 and 2012 (source: Gama Sutra).

To be honest, I think Mr. hawk5934 has a point. If the Pokemon in generation six aren't palatable to an American audience then Pokemon X/Y isn't going to be a strong product for the 3DS in the considerable US marketplace. The Pokemon could be seen as indicative of a more insular approach to design in Nintendo, something that the mainstream American audience isn't going to respond to. There was a time when the mainstream was built out of enthusiasts who'd embrace Japanese styling, sadly, the composition of the mainstream has changed. As a result, perhaps the current emphasis on violent realism has rendered Japanese offerings cartoonish and detached. This would undeniably lead to a rebalancing in sales to favour the Xbox 360 over the Wii. A console is only as good as its software, after all. You only have to look at the Philips CDi as an example. If there aren't games that people want, they will not buy the console this late in the hardware cycle.

What is to be said for the 3DS? Its competing mobile platforms are experimenting with a feature that's been rendered largely superfluous on both the 3DS and it's older brother, the DS. It's hard to say whether touch screen hardware is ever going to present a significantly better gameplay experience than buttons, thumbsticks and d-pads. The software, the games, need to adapt to the new physical interface. They are doing so rapidly in the smart phone market because of there is feverish innovation in the system fueled by small projects that are quick to put to market. The 3DS does not have the same agility. Unless someone in the AAA industry strikes it lucky, it is independant outfits that will reap the benefits of new hardware by the simple virtue of being more populous. In comparison, the 3DS might not have such swift software turnover but instead has recognised brands and household names. This will not last forever as a distinguishing feature - think about how many people know about Angry Birds without having ever played it or even used an iPhone. Nintendo need to capitalise and capitalise fast to strengthen its position. They've already lost the majority of the adult market, kids are getting phones younger and younger; soon they'll lose the teenage market too. Nintendo need a killer app, a game exclusive to the platform. Pokemon is as good as any.

Alternatively, hawk5934 could just be a whiney little bitch.

Topic courtesy of Purianite/JC via Facebook