rileyuk.co.uk

Man wins 250K for kicking a rugby ball!! What are the chances! Didn't James have a go at something similar?

stimpsonslostson wrote:Man wins 250K for kicking a rugby ball!! What are the chances! Didn't James have a go at something similar?

James had to get it over the bar to win a Merc (if I remember right that is!)

James would've loved it to have been that easy... he had to get it to land (and stay, possibly) in a specific area. Maybe slightly easier than hitting the crossbar, but the prize wasn't quite that high either.

I love the fact the guy took his shoes off to "feel the ball". Pfft, I thought. Paid off nicely though.

How heavy is the Internet? A subjective calculation at best but amusing never the less.

Wigan players set to refund fans who bought tickets at the DW stadium after a 9-1 thrashing by Tottenham. Nice jesture, bet they are glad it was not a home game!

Tactical Nuclear Penguin probably the worlds strongest beer has been lanched by a Scottish brewery. 32% volume. Nice.

Ugliest cat in the world?

I'll be amazed if they can get that beer to taste half-decent. The temptation would be there to buy at least one bottle, but you could get a really nice single malt for that price. Hmm...

The Royal Society will mark its 350th year by publishing online 60 of its most famous manuscripts, including a brutal blood transfusion and a kite / thunder / lightening experiment by Ben Franklin.

I'm leaving Edinburgh Uni, I've found a post which TRULY reflects my interests.

Also, HUGE MAN, small seat.

Apparently all men watch p0rn... study fails to find control group when looking to assess the impact of "one handed surfing" on men.

They obviously weren't looking hard enough... Amish and Mormons come to mind straight away.

Maybe they looked there and were shocked not to find any.

The Amish would be doing well to view any movies, let alone what they were looking at in the study.

Maybe if they looped a series of naughty etchings at, say, about 25 frames per second?

Unfortunately the results of any study are only applicable to the rest of the population from which they are drawn (and consequentially represent). Therefore to select a "specialist" subsection would invalidate any application to the rest of the national population. It'd be like looking for people who'd never eaten fast food, but only including vegans.

(Upon closer inspection, their eventual sample size of 20 is hardly massive! Once they had given up on finding those who's mates had parental locked their computers, SURELY they could find more than 20 subjects!) It annoys me what can pass for science these days.