I installed a cabinet in a basement kitchen that had big cast iron wastewater pipes in the back of the cabinet behind the drawer. I shortened the back of the drawer 4 inches.
Yeehaw!

I had always assumed that the hotel safe was safer than the drawer for things like my passport, nothing more.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Karen Black- Underwear Drawer. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Pro Tip: put in $.25 then get a small-boned 3 year old to crawl in the exit drawer and toss out all the toys.

https://youtu.be/4cGwumNaccM

Congratulations! Your video, New Method For Making Wood Corners For Drawers Or Boxes, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 24 Badge!

Your video, New Method For Making Wood Corners For Drawers Or Boxes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

So, basically, the next Dark Souls.

Which is fine, because I enjoy those games. Character and enemy designs look great, but at this point they're just regurgitating a formula. It looks foreboding, it's probably going to be brutally difficult, there will be some interesting monsters and probably a convoluted, western-style dark fantasy plot. That's the same thing that Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 offered to a 'T'.
Someone no one else has ever agreed with me from the game industry is personal reinvention, and I wish consumer demand was more fickle for less repetitive offerings.
I *might* play this, but after 3 games, multiple playthroughs of each (because I loved them so much), I'm pretty much over it. Plus, fuck next gen consoles, I could have gotten another 5 years from the current crop. I expect truly talented developers to innovate when they're lauded for their perceived innovation from past successes. Tackling an entirely different genre in the same way the *Souls games were throwbacks to more unforgiving times, or taking the extremes from the previous entries to completely unexpected heights.
There are so many fucking vectors of unexplored progress in the medium that it never surprises me when industry reports year-over-year declines for half a decade, and infuriates me to the point that I wish it would all just fucking die already, wipe out the failures, and rebuild it with this millenniums version of the NES. It's not even about finding "completely new, unexplored methods of interactive media", because you can continue to build on the genre's that exist with a 4-decade-old toolbox that an entire industry only recognizes the most recently opened drawer of.

Who could name it "Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel".

That would at least be easier to remember than "Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday (pops mouth twice) Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable (whinnying) Arthur Norman Michael (blows squeaker) Featherstone Smith (whistle) Northcott Edwards Harris (fires pistol, then 'whoop') Mason (chuff-chuff-chuff-chuff) Frampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert (sings) 'We'll keep a welcome in the' (three shots) Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin (squeaker) Tiger-drawers Pratt Thompson (sings) 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter (horn) Pussycat (sings) 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mainwaring (hoot, 'whoop') Smith"

Wait, they have a candy drawer??!

When he's all bigs he'll protest, "The fuckin' drawer!!? WHAT? ARE YA CRAZY!?"

Sweet desk! But the way those side drawers pop out makes my balls nervous.

As I said repeatedly, I agree with you that zoos are unnatural.

You start with unnatural, you end with unnatural.

You start with unnatural, you end up making unnatural choices.

This is a hard hard world, and we as humans are killing it more and more every day.

Zoos have morphed from being horrible cages, confining animals to be gawked at by unfeeling humans. Now zoos, the good ones, do their damnedest to create as natural an environment as possible.

Which still isn't very natural.

You say that this was an "unconscionable" choice, the killing of poor Marius (by the way, I mourn him, too.)

Do you think they should have taken the $600K from the wealthy person wanting to save his life? Even though it would have sentenced poor Marius to isolation and depression for the rest of his "natural" life? To me, that would be unconscionable. Blood money, made off the suffering of a single animal.

I think the real problem here is the very existence of zoos. There would be no Marius if there were no zoos.

I keep thinking about my dad's second wife. She was a piece of cake -- not the sharpest knife in the drawer, not capable of reasoned, step by step thinking. She had a great native -- almost feral -- intelligence though, it just wasn't that "logical."

One day, my uber-logical engineer father said something that she didn't like. I didn't like it either. So Oleta said, in a thick Okie drawl, "Just because something is right, doesn't mean it is right."

I almost started laughing at the absurdity of her statement, until I realized what she was really saying. So I asked her, "Do you mean just because something is logical, that doesn't mean it is right?" Yep. That was what she meant.

I think this is one of those situations. There are logical step by step reasons that led to poor Marius being literally fed to the lions. And then there is the emotional truth of a healthy and happy young giraffe being treated like he wasn't an individual with a right to a natural life.

Just because it was right, doesn't mean it was right.

1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

1; £50-£100 may not be much to you, but there are countries where the population exist on around 40 pence a day, I'm sure they would consider it a lot of money.

2; You saying; " smashing it with a hammer is no different to most of the mindless procrastination they get used for anyway," is rather silly. A Non-sequitur.

3; It doesn't beat "languishing in a drawer." Money - albeit a small amount- can be made from old phones or, if you care, given to someone who can't afford one. That, incidentally, is the major point I was trying -unsuccessfully it seems - to make.