Comic strip for geeks (really rather good).
…as well as providing wedding cake for a famous blogger and his wife.
Well, maybe not famous.
Dave the Kennamatic needs help. "Nothing new there", I hear you cry. But take pity on the poor chap and head over to his site to give him some advice on romancing.
Today I took Hels to the hospital for a new scan and something called a Nuchal Translucency Test (which definitely merits capital letters). I won’t bore you with too many details about it, nor with another grainy black and white image of the baby (although we could clearly see the arms, legs and nose, as well as the spine, thigh bones and stomach). The test is for Down’s Syndrome and the result gives a probability for the baby suffering that condition. The starting point for a woman of Hels’s age is 1 in 131, but as a result of the test we now have the surprisingly precise figure of 1 in 704 which, apparently, makes her the equivalent of a woman ten years younger. Naturally this went down well with my wife. Anyway, the baby is considered to be at low risk of Down’s and no further testing for it will be required.
Amusingly, as the sonographer tried various angles with the scanner in order to get a clear image of the foetus, the Graysprog decided that he/she was definitely not happy with being pushed about and gave Hels a fairly hefty kick – which we could see clearly on the monitor. That was very cool indeed.
Without doubt a great loss to the club, but needs must when the coffers are empty.
Teachers want to replace the word "failed" with "deferred success" when marking pupils’ work and papers.
WTF again?? Does that mean that, when the guard on your morning train tells you that the "train has failed" (I’ve always loved that phrase), what he in fact means is that the rolling stock is merely suffering from deferred success. Genius.
I’ve just watched Channel 4 News, in which they revealed that they had "found the shop where the London bombers bought their rucksacks!"
Cut to exterior shot of a branch of Blacks outdoor-type shop and aerated reporter breathlessly telling us that this "reflected a pattern of the bombers buying what they needed over the counter" (I paraphrase). The reporter helpfully went on to say that a representative from the store chain had told reporters that they had withdrawn the type of rucksack used by the bombers.
WTF? Firstly, do the media expect us to think that the rucksacks were especially shipped in from Afghanistan for the purpose of bombing? Secondly, do they think that we are somehow going to be reassured by the fact that the particular rucksack has been withdrawn? I mean, clearly it will now be much harder for a bomber to carry out a similar attack if they can’t get that special bomber’s bag.
The reporter went on to tell us that the bombers also bought plastic containers from a nearby garden centre ("for less than a pound!"), but by that point I was fed up and left the room before I put a boot through the TV screen.
I used to expect good things from Channel 4 News. Clearly I should expect only Daily Mail-style sensationalism now.
Alias Runner – for petrolheads.
In the absence of anything new from Weebl, here’s a story about a missing pie (NSFW).