"'Skip Conversions' tried to find creative and often amusing ways of recycling unwanted products. One example was a dumpster ..."

Nope, they just converted skips, which "A Noun" has already explained are garbage receptacles, commonly known to many as dumpsters.

Oh, and Ted's comment FTW.

"Perhaps Josh means anamorphic lens flare, which is not in nature, but the nature of light recording on film."

Actually, I presume he's talking about still-camera lens flare or the apparent shape of points of light in unfocused areas of a photo, but I wanted to make sure before explaining that such phenomena are due to the shape of the aperture.

I get the impression a lot of commenters here believe the author is trying to prove that Denmark and Sweden are more morally centered than other societies or that they're more morally centered as a direct result of their lack of religion.

The premise, as stated in the first quoted paragraph, is simply that a society can be "good" without religion, contrary to what many Christians insist. The aforementioned countries are cited as examples.

My friend, who teaches middle school, cannot convince many of his kids that "fidna" is not a word.

"I'm fidna leave." "I'm fidna go get some lunch."

He asks, "You mean you're 'fixing to'?"

"No," they respond, "fidna!"

They even write it that way. True story.

Perhaps it could next be used as a small tetanus-booster clinic.

Unfocused light is hexagonal? Eh?

"If you look close, you can see the puppeteer’s legs under the raptor."

You had to look close to see that? Did you nearly miss the stick up the T-Rex's rear-end, too?

Was just doing some more reading on this. To clarify, Anne was 12 when the footage was taken, not 13.

By the way, this version, posted by the Anne Frank House, is much clearer, especially when viewed in high quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hvtXuO5GzU

@PNutty - Unless you've been to the Louvre, the only images you've seen of the Mona Lisa are photographs. That doesn't make the Mona Lisa a photograph; it's still a painting. The images of Anne Frank above are film images.

Yes, YouTube shows you a video version, but referring to the medium in question as "the only known ..." clearly references the original, which would be film. (Again, using the comparison above, if someone had found a painting of Anne Frank, it would not be referred to as the "only known photograph" simply because it appears on Flickr.)

Yes, it may be pedantic, but in writing, it's often necessary to be so in order to be clear.

I'm also pretty sure they didn't have video in 1941. Technically, these would be film images.

One R in Doritos. :)

Meh.

Neil will kick himself for missing the misuse of the word "complimentary" where it should have been "complementary."