Off-topic chat. May contain offensive language or images.
User avatar
By Nicola_Red
#386113
Johnny 1989 wrote:What are yams & what would be the equivalent over here??


Yams are sweet potatoes. I think I know some of these things from cooking with American cookbooks. Sorry to jump in on your thread tho Wes! And yeah, it's the same address I gave you, thankyou :)
User avatar
By DannyBoy
#386114
why cant the Yankees beat the Red Sox? :(

So when a foul happens in American Football and Penalty gets issues is it a fixed distance that the ball gets moved to the end zone or does the ref decide? I cannot figure this one out.
By Wesley
#386126
Johnny 1989 wrote:What are yams & what would be the equivalent over here?
Do you yet have Digital TV/Radio in the US yet? (I was last told about 2 years back that you didn't)
Do they still make Sesame Street over there?


Yams well are sweet potatoes I think. To be honest I've always known them as sweet potatoes but at one point I want to say someone told me that they aren't one in the same but they sure taste and look the same. Think of your normal potato and color the inside a dark orange and add some brown sugar. That's a yam/sweet potato. They are great when you mash them up with some milk or cream then bake for 30 minutes and for the last 10 you add a layer of small marshmallows to just drive up the sugar factor 500% (WARNING THIS MAY INDUCE A DIABETIC COMA).

Yes we have Digital TV/Radio - The TV part has really taken off however the government mandate for all stations has been moved to next month. However, most TV stations have been on it for a couple of years already. Digital Radio hasn't really caught on as much especially with most new cars coming with XM-Sirus Satellite Radio or IPOD adapters built in. Needless to say most of the really larger stations are on a digital format.

YES they do still make Sesame Street in factor the First Lady Michele Obama (aka let's give the Queen a hug and an IPOD) was on it the other day. She met Elmo and they talked about growing a garden.

TIAL wrote:One question. Kentucky Grilled Chicken. What. The. *!


You know I said the same thing and then I tried it and I have to say it is better than the fried counterpart. Can't explain it - it is like the 12 herbs and spices are inside the chicken rather than just on the outside of the skin. Good stuff. Come over the pond and I will personally buy you lunch at KFC*.

*Offer only good at any Huntsville or Arab, AL location of KFC.

foot-loose wrote:Jerked chicken. Is it as suspicious as it sounds?

Watch this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2syY12OPkwI (embedding disabled).

You're IN Alabama. Would that happen?


Ah nice try - it is not American rather Jamican mon!
I think.

nicola_red wrote:
Johnny 1989 wrote:What are yams & what would be the equivalent over here??

Yams are sweet potatoes. I think I know some of these things from cooking with American cookbooks. Sorry to jump in on your thread tho Wes! And yeah, it's the same address I gave you, thankyou :)


No prob love - You are right on as usual. I'll add a something extra for ya.

DannyBoy wrote:why cant the Yankees beat the Red Sox? :(

So when a foul happens in American Football and Penalty gets issues is it a fixed distance that the ball gets moved to the end zone or does the ref decide? I cannot figure this one out.


Well for one thing the both suck. Go Atlanta Braves - now with that said I continue. Actually for many years it was the other way around check out the curse of the bambino (aka Bake Ruth - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Bambino). In recent years it has been flipped and flopped. Either way I think they are all on drugs and should be thrown in jail with the key thrown away.

Ah good question - In American football the distance is set by the penalty. Now believe it or not the distance can vary based on different leagues (High School, College, Indoor, NFL). One exception is if the penalty distance prescribed by the rules is longer than the distance to the goal. In that case the will do half the distance to the goal or something of that nature.
User avatar
By TIAL
#386130
Wesley wrote:You know I said the same thing and then I tried it and I have to say it is better than the fried counterpart. Can't explain it - it is like the 12 herbs and spices are inside the chicken rather than just on the outside of the skin. Good stuff. Come over the pond and I will personally buy you lunch at KFC*.

*Offer only good at any Huntsville or Arab, AL location of KFC.


Excellent! I shall have to remember that offer ;)
I suppose this brings up other questions. I (and I'd assume most other Brits) think of 'grilled' meat as being put in a grill - in which the heat source comes from the top down to cook the meat which rests on the grill pan (I'm sorry if this sounds deeply patronising and obvious but I've always thought that 'grilled' in America means 'barbecued' in England.) If this is the case, do you have what the Brits consider grills and what do you call them?
Also, what would you call it if you fried chicken in a frying pan? For me, that's what 'fried chicken' is. KFC is deep-fried, not fried :P
User avatar
By Johnny 1989
#386133
nicola_red wrote:
Johnny 1989 wrote:What are yams & what would be the equivalent over here??


Yams are sweet potatoes. I think I know some of these things from cooking with American cookbooks. Sorry to jump in on your thread tho Wes! And yeah, it's the same address I gave you, thankyou :)


Ah ok, thanks for the info

Wesley wrote:
Johnny 1989 wrote:What are yams & what would be the equivalent over here?
Do you yet have Digital TV/Radio in the US yet? (I was last told about 2 years back that you didn't)
Do they still make Sesame Street over there?


Yams well are sweet potatoes I think. To be honest I've always known them as sweet potatoes but at one point I want to say someone told me that they aren't one in the same but they sure taste and look the same. Think of your normal potato and color the inside a dark orange and add some brown sugar. That's a yam/sweet potato. They are great when you mash them up with some milk or cream then bake for 30 minutes and for the last 10 you add a layer of small marshmallows to just drive up the sugar factor 500% (WARNING THIS MAY INDUCE A DIABETIC COMA).

Yes we have Digital TV/Radio - The TV part has really taken off however the government mandate for all stations has been moved to next month. However, most TV stations have been on it for a couple of years already. Digital Radio hasn't really caught on as much especially with most new cars coming with XM-Sirus Satellite Radio or IPOD adapters built in. Needless to say most of the really larger stations are on a digital format.

YES they do still make Sesame Street in factor the First Lady Michele Obama (aka let's give the Queen a hug and an IPOD) was on it the other day. She met Elmo and they talked about growing a garden.



Ah so it seems that Digital TV has taken off since. I remember someone from America on another forum asked in a US version of Dixons/Currys/Comet, if Digital TV would be out soon & the shop assistant laughed at such a suggestion. When he mentioned that the UK had had it for several years he replied sarcastically "I don't think so, we would have it over here before them", wrong! :lol:

I had a feeling Sesame Street was still going, it was on Channel 4 (UK) for years and then suddenly it disappeared which made me think it had finished, but seeing as they keep releasing the toys, I did wonder.

Thanks for the replies :D
User avatar
By Sunny So Cal
#386158
Wesley wrote:
DannyBoy wrote:why cant the Yankees beat the Red Sox? :(


Well for one thing the both suck. Go Atlanta Braves


Hmm. I'm assuming you meant "they both suck" yet the last time I checked the Yankees and the Braves were both 1 game under 500. So, they must "suck" as bad as your Braves then.

And, Danny, you know my feelings on the subject. Red Sux are evil.
User avatar
By Boboff
#386170
Yudster wrote:Actually its just a different system to here, i shouldn't be so dismissive. I think in general most jobs offer health insurance packages etc which we only get in certain circumstances over here, so I expect it all evens itself out overall. Still wouldn't want to live there though. Great place to visit, lousy place to be an employee!


I think your opinion is formed through work in the Public Sector.

Most hourly paid people ( and I would hazard these are the majority of workers) are only paid sick pay after the first 3 days sick (no pay for those days) and then for full time it is just over £60 a week. This lasts for 26 weeks, then they get state benefit.

You used to be able to claim as an employer the cost of sick pay back from the Government, like you can maternity pay, but the kindly labour government scrapped that idea very early on in there first term of government.
User avatar
By Yudster
#386175
I pretty much acknowledged that with my post Boboff. But I still wouldn't want to live in America! Unless I was really rich and could have one of those gorgeous brownstones around the Columbus Avenue area of Manhattan, with an indoor swimming pool in the basement.
User avatar
By MK Chris
#386178
I think I get SSP from my first day sick, I was under the impression that was a standard thing.
User avatar
By Yudster
#386186
I think thats pretty standard for salaried positions.
User avatar
By Boboff
#386212
Agreed.

What used to amaze me was that all the salaried people who got paid when sick were never sick, but the hourly people who did not get paid had 1 day off a fortnight on average "sick" In the Salmon factory it went up to almost 1 day a week on average at one point (just after I got the rules changed so hourly would be paid sick the same as salaried, it didn't last long)

It's a real bugger as it meant you had to employ at least 15% more people than you actually needed, just to cover unauthorised absence.
User avatar
By MK Chris
#386217
I'm never ill. It always amazes me the number of people who take a sick day for a cold or something equally insignificant.. yeah, you don't feel as well as you might do, get over it. The world still turns.

Where I work now, for every full six months of non-sickness, you get a choice of a day's extra pay or a day's extra holiday, which I think is a nice incentive. I know there is a downside in that it penalises the genuinely ill, but it does discourage people pulling sickies. But then it's great for me because I haven't taken a day off sick since I left school, so I'm obviously a bit biased towards it.
User avatar
By Zoot
#386219
I've taken 2 days off sick in about 3 years, and that was because I had chronic stomach pains and kept needing to run to the loo. Actually, that pissed me off because I still had a phonecall from someone from work chasing me up on some work that wasn't urgent. I was asleep so Mrs Zoot took the call, took the message then rang my boss to tell him. He went mad and complained to the department. I then got an official apology.
Ha
User avatar
By S4B
#386221
boboff wrote:Agreed.

What used to amaze me was that all the salaried people who got paid when sick were never sick, but the hourly people who did not get paid had 1 day off a fortnight on average "sick" In the Salmon factory it went up to almost 1 day a week on average at one point (just after I got the rules changed so hourly would be paid sick the same as salaried, it didn't last long)

It's a real bugger as it meant you had to employ at least 15% more people than you actually needed, just to cover unauthorised absence.


Even my staff who are paid hourly rather than salaried get the same 26 weeks that I do!
User avatar
By Zoot
#386222
S4B wrote:
boboff wrote:Agreed.

What used to amaze me was that all the salaried people who got paid when sick were never sick, but the hourly people who did not get paid had 1 day off a fortnight on average "sick" In the Salmon factory it went up to almost 1 day a week on average at one point (just after I got the rules changed so hourly would be paid sick the same as salaried, it didn't last long)

It's a real bugger as it meant you had to employ at least 15% more people than you actually needed, just to cover unauthorised absence.


Even my staff who are paid hourly rather than salaried get the same 26 weeks that I do!


26 weeks holiday????
User avatar
By MK Chris
#386226
I do understand the difficulties employers face in setting their policies; the sickness policy, for example, should ideally be fair enough to accommodate the genuinely ill, yet make it difficult to catch the bad apples who will abuse it if they can. Sickness, holidays and smoking breaks are the biggest source of aggravation amongst workers, I imagine. Non-smokers nearly always feel that smokers get more breaks, so that policy has to try and be fair between the two as well. I wouldn't want to be an employer, I know that.
User avatar
By jocky85
#386232
I rarely take days off sick, although I'm forever getting coughs and colds!
User avatar
By Munki Bhoy
#386258
In answer to my own question... FX paid for a one year contract of Colbert Report, they haven't been getting the viewing figures so they haven't renewed it.

*shakes fist* FX!!!!!!!!!

(That's funny if you've see it...)
User avatar
By MK Chris
#386259
Can't you download it?
User avatar
By Nicola_Red
#386266
Topher wrote:I do understand the difficulties employers face in setting their policies; the sickness policy, for example, should ideally be fair enough to accommodate the genuinely ill, yet make it difficult to catch the bad apples who will abuse it if they can..


That's what the 'Bradford factor' that my employers and many others have adopted is meant to do. What it actually does is penalise people who have ailments/illnesses/conditions that recur in short bursts meaning that they have a lot of one-day absences but few long term ones - like allergies, menstrual problems and migraines, for example.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7