Images that make you laugh

[ZiprHead]

I gotta get some of them for that purpose.

That actually looks like the same calculator I had on my desk at work.

 

[Bomb#20]

View attachment 39611

That is a troll. Star Wars isn't "Sci-Fi". Star Trek barely can be considered it.

Uh oh. Somebody wants to throw down.

Of course they're "Sci-Fi", duh! Presumably what Jimmy meant is that they aren't SF.

 

[hyzer]

I gotta get some of them for that purpose.

That actually looks like the same calculator I had on my desk at work.

At a firm I once worked for some wag put small googly eyes on the Mens and Womens room pictograph signs. The men had their eyes on the otherwise blank heads. The googlies on the women were somewhat lower….

 

[bilby]

I gotta get some of them for that purpose.

That actually looks like the same calculator I had on my desk at work.

At a firm I once worked for some wag put small googly eyes on the Mens and Womens room pictograph signs. The men had their eyes on the otherwise blank heads. The googlies on the women were somewhat lower….

Excuse me! My eyes are up h...

Oh, wait.

 

[Hermit]

That is a troll. Star Wars isn't "Sci-Fi". Star Trek barely can be considered it.

Uh oh. Somebody wants to throw down.

Of course they're "Sci-Fi", duh! Presumably what Jimmy meant is that they aren't SF.

I agree with Jimmy Higgins and after adding the bracketed word I also agree with this:

[Most] Science Fiction isn’t stories about our future. It’s stories about our present, and our past, set in the future.

 

[bilby]

That is a troll. Star Wars isn't "Sci-Fi". Star Trek barely can be considered it.

Uh oh. Somebody wants to throw down.

Of course they're "Sci-Fi", duh! Presumably what Jimmy meant is that they aren't SF.

I agree with Jimmy Higgins and after adding the bracketed word I also agree with this:

[Most] Science Fiction isn’t stories about our future. It’s stories about our present, and our past, set in the future.

Star Wars isn't even set in the future; It's set in the past. Trek is set in the future.

 

[Hermit]

That is a troll. Star Wars isn't "Sci-Fi". Star Trek barely can be considered it.

Uh oh. Somebody wants to throw down.

Of course they're "Sci-Fi", duh! Presumably what Jimmy meant is that they aren't SF.

I agree with Jimmy Higgins and after adding the bracketed word I also agree with this:

[Most] Science Fiction isn’t stories about our future. It’s stories about our present, and our past, set in the future.

Star Wars isn't even set in the future; It's set in the past. Trek is set in the future.

Ah, thanks. I must admit having made a conscious effort to ignore everything concerning Star Wars ever since I saw the last half hour or so of the first movie when it was broadcast on TV in the late 1970s. Apparently very successfully.

 

[bilby]

That is a troll. Star Wars isn't "Sci-Fi". Star Trek barely can be considered it.

Uh oh. Somebody wants to throw down.

Of course they're "Sci-Fi", duh! Presumably what Jimmy meant is that they aren't SF.

I agree with Jimmy Higgins and after adding the bracketed word I also agree with this:

[Most] Science Fiction isn’t stories about our future. It’s stories about our present, and our past, set in the future.

Star Wars isn't even set in the future; It's set in the past. Trek is set in the future.

Ah, thanks. I must admit having made a conscious effort to ignore everything concerning Star Wars ever since I saw the last half hour or so of the first movie when it was broadcast on TV in the late 1970s. Apparently very successfully.

TV broadcast technology was fairly well established by the late 1970s, so lots of stuff was broadcast very successfully at that time.

 

[SLD]

 

[blastula]

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Hermit]

Star Wars isn't even set in the future; It's set in the past. Trek is set in the future.

Ah, thanks. I must admit having made a conscious effort to ignore everything concerning Star Wars ever since I saw the last half hour or so of the first movie when it was broadcast on TV in the late 1970s. Apparently very successfully.

TV broadcast technology was fairly well established by the late 1970s, so lots of stuff was broadcast very successfully at that time.

 

[Elixir]

 

[thebeave]

Yeah, cats are masters at giving you "the look".

 

[Angry Floof]

 

[Iznomneak]

ETA:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentuc...ues-insurance-company-over-heavy-rain-damage/

 

[Politesse]

Act of god.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was curious about this. Took a look on Google Earth.

It appears that this refers to the embankment just to the east of the ark, and not where the creek is (bridge crossing)... good luck with a flood claim is ther is no creek. The 4/2018 image implies where the failure was cracking in the pavement. There is surface drainage installed running to what appears to be the toe of the embankment slope (not a great idea)

Groundwater might have been an issue, but I doubt it was stormwater (surface), unless they successfully managed to divert their stormwater straight along the toe of the slope they made. More likely the failure was due to crappy layback and/or not stepping in a side hill fill. This is shown as being likely true due to the 2/2020 image slowing the embankment toe being much further down, which means the slope is likely shallower than it was in the 4/2017 image. All of this is likely why the insurance company told them to feck off.

Sadly, this wasn't an Act of God, but an act of cheapo design/contracting, and not having Jesus signing off on the plans.

 

[Elixir]

Act of god.

Indeed. Any insurance Company that fails exclude Ax of Gods when insuring Hammy, should be forced to pay triple!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was curious about this. Took a look on Google Earth.

It appears that this refers to the embankment just to the east of the ark, and not where the creek is (bridge crossing)... good luck with a flood claim is ther is no creek. The 4/2018 image implies where the failure was cracking in the pavement. There is surface drainage installed running to what appears to be the toe of the embankment slope (not a great idea)

Groundwater might have been an issue, but I doubt it was stormwater (surface), unless they successfully managed to divert their stormwater straight along the toe of the slope they made. More likely the failure was due to crappy layback and/or not stepping in a side hill fill. This is shown as being likely true due to the 2/2020 image slowing the embankment toe being much further down, which means the slope is likely shallower than it was in the 4/2017 image. All of this is likely why the insurance company told them to feck off.

Sadly, this wasn't an Act of God, but an act of cheapo design/contracting, and not having Jesus signing off on the plans.

Jesus isn't an engineer, why would you trust any plans he signs off on? I want a real engineer to sign off on it!