Master of disguise.

Roger the Hutt.

Explains so ******* much.

I think I found him

This is hurting my eyes. And giving me a headache.
Luckily, I can just take 2 Aleve and I'll be fine all day!

It's like a final destination-themed where's wally!

To my understanding, he's called Waldo in the US and Wally in the UK.

It's actually a pretty big aspect of cultural difference when you look at it. In America, names tend to be a lot cheesier/gimmicky than in the UK, as evidenced by brands like Wendy's, TGI Fridays and so on.

There are also naming differences that don't seem to make any sense as to why there is a change as both seem to fit the culture of both countries such as Axe body spray being called Lynx in the UK.

**** be whack, yo.

I live in the U.S. Wally is a name. Waldo is not. It's still called "Where's Waldo" and I always thought he had a weird name.

I thought Wally was a Spanish thing!!

In other order of things, Vauxhall cars in Spain are called Opel.

No, the changing of brand names to better suit the culture of where they're being sold is a very common thing.

In America, for example, they call garbage "Fast Food" whereas in the UK they call Fast food "Garbage."

Aah! you mean the fish & chips stuff?

-_- Ooh... you got me there. Fish'n'Chips are both fast food and absolutely delicious...

However, the fish and chips sold in the "Chippies" all over the UK are generally not tampered with whereas processed ***** in America tend to be 50% bull 50% ******** .

The stuff they get away with selling in America simply wouldn't be legal by UK and European health laws.

Um... IDK, as a vegetarian I can't tell. But isn't McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks and all those franchises american?

Whilst those three are based in America (though McDonald's originated in the UK, hence the name of the family who originally owned it) the food that is sold in the UK and most European countries is very different to the stuff they sell in America.

Because of the differing food laws, fast food in the UK is a lot healthier than in the US, but it's still pretty unfit for regular consumption.

Also, since you mentioned the 'V' word, would you eat artificially grown meat? As in, meat made in labratories by scientists? The advance of society has placed burdens on the food landscape that the earth simply will not be able to sustain so a lot of time and effort has gone into alternative means of producing ***** that don't take up the same amount of time, effort, money and land as traditional meat products do, but have all the benefits of meat (including the sweet, meaty taste.)

I can't understand too good what you have said...
But I eat some kind of arficial meat already, it tastes like meat, has it's flavour, but provides not from animals but plants and ******** . It isn't the same, but it's enought for me =D

Ah. If you want to know what I'm getting at then google "In Vitro Meat". It is very interesting aspect of science that promises to provide the meat without the hassle of growing, feeding and eventually killing animals for their tasty bits. The science is coming along in leaps and bounds at the moment to boot.

I think I can guess it. Like farming it like mushrooms? Only the 'tejido'? (Don't know the english word for that). I think I would eat it, if there's not a self concienced being who dies.

Interesting. Thanks for the chat. *nod nod*

the more i hear people talk about the UK makes me realise that Australia is just a bigger, hotter version.

Actually, Australia and the UK have only two big differences. Two differences that massively effect the cultures of the two countries but not enough to stop them from sharing many fundamental truths.

The differences are:

The climate an the wildlife.

In Australia, a culture grew to be fairly out-going and somewhat brash because it was necessary in order to both enjoy life on the continent and to survive the harsh living conditions. The weather promotes outdoor activities and, due to the geography of the country, people were very close to both the seaside and a wild, untamed outback full of nasty, bitey, stingy animals.

Indoor activity was rendered unpopular to a degree because of the heat and veriety of **** to do outside down there.

Then you've got the UK. Even though, because it's an island, a lot of people live close to the sea (as in Australia) the climate makes outdoor pursuits frankly dismal. We have very little wilderness to explore in 4x4s and little reason to explore it, given that there's very little of interest out there. The seaside is also dismal at the best of times and people generally don't enjoy themselves to the same degree.

Because of that, the culture is very insular, enjoying indoor activities over outdoor ones. Not to say there are none, as paintballing is somewhat popular... though it is also the only outdoor activity that is both easy and cool to do, so it placates a lot of people's wishes to do stuff outdoors without the necessity of practice or experience as is the case in Australia.

However, even then the two cultures are fundamentally very similar. We tend to like the same things, share the same ideals, consume the same products and both seem to have a healthy respect for the same things.

It's when you really see these things that you can really feel the shared cultural history of two parts of the same ex-empire.

tl;dr

Pretty much just the heat, aye.

You sound like a ******** wallyspotter.

Why is waldo?!?

*Where

I wouldn't put it past Waldo to be hiding temporally.