I've never described anything I've cooked to anybody before—and I seldom cook—but tonight I prepared a seafood fettuccine and used way too much cream and white wine. I served myself a huge portion, considering my neglected, emaciated body; and I had a big glass of wine with it. Half an hour after finishing it I was lying on my grubby unvacuumed carpet quite drunk and almost comatose. I still feel lightheaded and stupefied. It's been a long time since I've posted here but I'm so lonely.

I've never described anything I've cooked to anybody before—and I seldom cook—but tonight I prepared a seafood fettuccine and used way too much cream and white wine. I served myself a huge portion, considering my neglected, emaciated body; and I had a big glass of wine with it. Half an hour after finishing it I was lying on my grubby unvacuumed carpet quite drunk and almost comatose. I still feel lightheaded and stupefied. It's been a long time since I've posted here but I'm so lonely.

Scum.

Hi, munchies_matt (zzebowa(at)hotmail.com) has asked me if I could beg on his behalf for his account to be re-enabled; apparently at least ten people consider his posts to be spam.

Could somebody please remove my account?

FyreWyrm wrote:

How about some of the homemade grenades he booby-trapped his apartment with? He had over 30 of them in his apartment wired up to traps. What if he walked in and lobbed a half dozen grenades into the crowd. More than 12 people would have died. What's your argument now? How about we ban all of the items that could possibly be used to make explosive devices.

Very few people can successfully make explosives. Moreover, explosives require preparation, more often than not. Consider Anders Breivik - he killed eight people with his car-bomb and sixty-nine with his guns.

FyreWyrm wrote:

There goes all modern technology, cleaning supplies, gardening supplies, gasoline/diesel. If people want to kill, they will find a way, regardless of how well regulated anything is.

If people are determined, they will. Most shootings are not so premeditated; nobody mixes up some fertilizer explosive immediately after he catches his wife cheating on him.

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

Whether one or twelve doesn't matter - any loss of life is unconscionable. And you only need one heavy object to injure or kill.

I agree that any loss of life is unconscionable, but I certainly don't agree that it doesn't matter whether one person is murdered or twelve.

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

It doesn't make the argument any less valid by trivialising it and using potatoes in it's place.

I'm genuinely curious. What could he have used that would even approach a firearm?

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

How about if you'd substituted bricks in there instead?

OK. Let's suppose he took bricks in there. Would twelve people have been killed and fifty-eight injured? Would he have used a wheelbarrow, or just carried three or four in his arms?

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

Honestly, if he didn't have a gun, he'd just have looked for some other weapon.

I've always hated that argument. In this situation it may be true, but when I heard it being made about the Aurora shootings, for example, I just thought, if he didn't have guns, would he have killed those twelve people by throwing fucking potatoes at them?

Dalek Dave wrote:

It is also the reason why the number of even numbers is bigger than the number of odd numbers, and yet they are both infinite.

In what sense? The sets of odd and even numbers have the same cardinality and asymptotic density.

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

Beer. That worked for me at Uni.

I don't like beer. It makes me ill.

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

Don't feed the trolls. They do crave attention.

If you can think of a better way to avoid doing my assignment, I'd like to hear it. ;P

Cap.SeeSharp wrote:

By the grace of God and my intellect.

Right. So do you still chug cough syrup or have you moved on to harder drugs?

How are you still alive?

Chris C-B wrote:

I can't imagine why I should remember just that bit. :rolleyes: :laugh:

:) It's a good theorem, that one. But it still doesn't entice me towards the rest of algebraic topology.

Marc Clifton wrote:

So, does that mean we won't be seeing your name on the "Notable algebraic topologists" Wikipedia list anytime soon? ;)

:) Well, I think that's very unlikely. I mean, at the moment I can appreciate it on some level, but it's been a while since I've had the energy to even be able to read through much of the technical detail. I'm no Poincaré.

I want the words "fuck algebraic topology" etched in gigantic letters on my substantial and elaborate mausoleum. That is all.

OriginalGriff wrote:

Having said that, it was a crime committed in the UK, so it is subject to UK law. To ship him to a foreign state he has never visited under the law of the country that asked for him is a dangerous thing to do: Could China not demand the extradition of everyone who complains about their civil rights record, or their occupation of Tibet? Could Israel not demand everyone who says they shouldn't be in Palestine? If you allow McKinnon to go to the US then China and Israel, and Iran, and North Korea, and... would have the same rights, I assume.

No, don't you see, America is allowed to do whatever the hell it likes and nobody else is allowed to complain or expect the same privileges. That's the message you should get from the state of the world.

It was great! I loved the twist at the end where The Doctor and River ended up being Amy and Rory's parents! :omg:

It is, I think, fairly common that the trivial object is actually TOO simple. For example, the empty space is not connected, the trivial ring is not a field, and 1 is not a prime number. The reason is an existence-uniqueness one - in this case, the prime factor representation always exists for a number, but it's not unique unless 1 is considered to not be prime.