658 posts • joined Monday 5th November 2007 10:17 GMT
Re: Search for which morons or morons your morons liked!
"I'd rather not waste two hours watching The Texan Chainsaw Massacre remake when ALL signs are that it is complete shit."
It's a remake of The Texan Chainsaw Massacre, what did you expect?
In fact, never mind the remake, the name of the film is "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Were you expecting Citizen Kane?
Re: "and if I swallow anything evil, put your finger down my throat..."
Bring back the tunnels that you use to exit sports stadia? I didn't know they'd been banned. Is that why football fans are always so angry - because they can't get out?
So you could have bought it online but because you needed it now it cost double the price? That is, in some respects, neither unusual nor immoral. If I haven't bothered to make sandwiches yesterday, then I will need to pay double for a pair from the shop what I could have paid for the ingredients. And they won't taste as nice or be as filling either.
Obviously the problem Comet couldn't survive just on the minority who need something urgently.
Also, you could have saved money by telling your son it won't kill him to play outside for a few days.
Re: High as a kite
You refer to that article and don't quote the bit where he discusses shoving 'bath salts' up your arse to induce 'hypersexual behaviour'?
Personally I can't think of anything more likely to turn on a woman than a man with dyed hair and moustache emerging from the jungle of Belize brandishing guns and foaming at the mouth and rectum. It all sounds like some sort of twisted Lynx advert.
It's probably not a bad job, it's just that nobody played as the male Shepard so nobody knows what he looks like.
(For those unfamiliar with the game, it's not a transvestite fantasy thing; the voice actress who played the female Shepard is much better than the bland male one. I remember PC Gamer highlighting this in its review and I'm fairly sure it wasn't the only one.)
If I was a creative type making an advert for Grand Theft Auto 4, what I would do is have Surly Moustachovic carjacking a Toyota, which then transports him into the real world, where he drives around sensibly for a while observing the speed limit and stopping at traffic lights. It would have made the game look much more fun than it actually was.
Given the insultingly infantilistic way they've started addressing their customers (that "Your thumb goes from here... to here" ad) I expect the revised apology to go something like "Judge said we done bad thing. We sorry we done bad thing. Samsung not actually do what we done. GOO GOO GA GA PLEBS."
Not very effective advertising
Wikipedia is my browser home page and I read the DYKs every morning over breakfast. It's usually the most interesting section.
If you had asked me "guess who's spamming DYK with excessive articles?" I would not have said Gibraltar - I would have immediately said the Indonesian Classic Film Society. Because there's something about an Indonesian / Dutch East Indian film or actor every day it seems. There's nothing sinister about this - it means that someone who's interested in Indoniesian film is doing a lot of article expansion and making regular submissions to DYK. Before Indonesian film it was Eurovision Song Contest entrants.
If Gibraltar are paying someone to promote the country via DYK, they should stop, not because it breaks the rules but because they're doing a rubbish job. I've noticed several trends over the years including the two above, and I haven't noticed Gibraltar items at all. Let alone been tempted to visit. 17 articles in a month occupies a tiny amount of space - DYK generally changes all its articles four times a day, meaning each item will last only 6 hours before disappearing forever, and there can be anything from 6-8 articles in each batch. So 17 out of 700-900 articles. Not very effective.
Re: Beginning of the end for the BBC?
"The BBC no longer properly act as the guardian of our culture and language (listen for a minute to their journalists consistently mispronouncing common English words and to their poor syntax),"
Can I just offer my compliments for your use of irony there, complaining about the BBC being unable to use language properly when your username refers to a Fast Show sketch whose premise was "Spanish people talk funny".
Re: Race to the Bottom
"You either have a very short or selective memory: Nick Davies in The Guardian broke the details on the bubbling-under phone hacking scandal that eventually brought down a certain newspaper."
And? One, everyone who reads Private Eye knew that phone-hacking was standard practice in UK newspapers already. We can thank Nick Davies for the juicy details which got everyone all outraged - dead schoolgirls, JK Rowling, etc - but not for revealing the actual practice, which was already public knowledge for anyone who bothered to take an interest.
Two, it was all very fascinating but had no significant effect. Watergate didn't inspire a cliché because it turned out that a politician lied, it was significant because it forced the President's resignation and altered the course of history. So what did Phonegate achieve? News International got to slim down its workforce early and bring forward the long-planned merger of the NotW with the Sun. Murdoch senior and junior had to go and kow-tow to the local parasites. We got to watch Mrs Murdoch karate-kick a pie-thrower in the face. Who cares? Journalists bribing plod for info was the only element of real public interest, but it's plod - nothing has been and nothing will be done, just like the current Hillsborough and Rotheram scandals.
It provided good fodder for newspapers and water-cooler chat, but there was no significant public benefit - and therefore no justification for an ongoing subsidy.
Evacuation of Dunkirk?
The beauty of this is that you can basically predict whatever you like. The tournament's only run once, there's only one winner, and they only play at most six of the other fifteen teams. You can't run it a hundred times to see if the percentages are correct. Even if Spain go out in the group stage, it doesn't mean the 12% figure was wrong.
No-one will ever know whether Spain had a 12% chance of winning, a 24% chance of winning or a 6% chance of winning. (How do we know there isn't a 50% chance that the tension between the Barca and Madrid camps will escalate into an all-out punchup, leading to an ignominous exit in nearly all those universes?) It's a theory you can't possibly disprove. And therefore, worthless.
That aside, "The model only uses the results of previous International games, the number of goals scored, and location of game." In other words, the fact that England's only international-class creative player is banned for the first two group matches, and they could be out before he gets a chance to play, hasn't been taken into account in ranking them third? Whoops. I know you can't include everything in a model, but if you can't include something like this, then don't bother.
Is it possible that the reason no-one is launching an anti-trust suit to prevent Facebook gobbling up the crap-photo-sharing market, is because nobody cares about the crap-photo-sharing market? I'd never heard of Instagram before it appeared in the mainstream news media and The Reg because Facebook thought it was worth '$1bn' of unsellable paper. Microsoft's attempt to create a monopoly, on the other hand, affected nearly everybody in the developed world. So does Google's (only now you can delete 'developed'). As far as I can see, this only affects amateur photographers. (Don't quote Niemöller, please, there is nothing in this case that prevents anti-trust authorities from acting later if Facebook tries to dominate a more far-reaching market.)
Perhaps anti-trust authorities *should* intervene, but it is perfectly understandable why they aren't.
Re: Risk is too big
Ideally yes. The problem is that most of the pages PR companies tend to edit do not have many eyeballs on them. There aren't many people who will be naturally attracted to edit articles about companies. A few big multinationals in the popular consciousness - McDonalds, Exxon, etc - will attract attention, but that is a minority. Most companies don't have any contentious issues for editors to hash out a consensus over, or interesting events that require the page to be updated regularly. They don't attract academic or hobbyist interest and aren't something that will ever appear on Mastermind as someone's specialist subject. So they aren't on many people's watchlists.
One of the more tiresome wiki-arguments is "you shouldn't just delete what people add even if it's naked PR guff, you should try to edit it into an encyclopaedic state". If someone dumps a barrowload of shit on your doorstep, most people won't bother to pick through it looking for undigested bits of cereal, because it is not a productive use of your time. When someone C&Ps several paragraphs of text from the company website going "Bellend Inc is globally recognised as one of the leading producers of high-quality brass clappers, with a proud history... shared ethos... years to come" etc etc, it's just going to be deleted because rewriting that sort of thing requires as much effort as writing it from scratch. And the reason no-one wrote up the company's history in the first place is because nobody cares.
One thing the article also doesn't mention is that, as a lot of the PR dumps are copy-and-pasted from the company's promotional literature, they are copyright violations, and must be binned immediately, regardless of merit.
"Ely, 52, smuggled his booty out of Iraq, claiming it was a piece of armoured vehicle."
British tanks are made of bronze? I know our forces ain't what they used to be but I thought we'd've got at least as far as Iron Working on the tech tree by now.
"We bet the company on the fact that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission."
Good for them. My business functions on the same principle - I steal the lead off church roofs. It's even easier to ask for forgiveness 'cos if they don't oblige their god will send them to hell.
"Off to read the Daily Fail to see how they explain it to the common people."
Headline: "Neutrinos Travel At Faster Than Speed Of Light After Gypsies Steal Them"
Sub-headline: "Jew Gets Laws Of Universe Wrong, Should Probably Stick To Eating Christian Babies"
Editorial: "We at the Daily Mail always knew that things could travel faster than light. Among the objects we have personally observed going faster than a neutrino: our judgement (when travelling out of the window), our knee tendons (when oscillating after seeing a photo of a junior martial arts contest), and human drool (coming out of our mouths while taking photos of celebrities in swimsuits, preferably underage)"
"Why Bahrainis - or persons elsewhere - were looking up the personal website of an anti-gay bus baron via 14feb-youth.com is still clouded in mystery. "
Maybe it was a Ministry of Propaganda official searching for the best way to persuade Bahrainis that the Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be.
"Yes, you can poke your friends and download stuff for free, but on the other hand you might find yourself reading the blather of a fat bus controller, who spent £500,000 in 1980s money on a campaign to tell everyone in the UK that he really genuinely doesn't love the cock. At www.briansouter.com.14feb-youth.com."
"Censorship and oppression it is then! Death to www.briansouter.com.14feb-youth.com!"
"If you are given a weapon right at the beginning you know something is waiting round the next corner."
That sounded like an interesting observation when I first read it, but then I realised the author just hasn't played enough games. Amnesia and the beginning of Half-Life 2 are obvious examples of games where being unarmed doesn't mean you won't be attacked. On the other side, Doom 3 gives you weapons well before the action starts..
£500k? Bloody hell. That's a hell of a lot to spend on something you're really not that fussed about, honest to God, you're not a homo, um, homophobe, you just don't think it should be forced down the throats, er, er, in the faces of, er, the upstanding members, er, of the British public.
Maybe he just happened to find £500k in loose change in the corner of his fucking massive closet.
You're assuming the rationale is punitive - actually it's economic. Firstly, most of the rioters were professional criminals, and it just doesn't make sense to subsidise the theft and destruction of property. Never mind the moral and sociological issues, we're broke and we can't afford it.
Secondly, there is a massive difference, practically and psychologically, between trying to take someone's money, and declining to pay them more money. Fines are a joke in this country and are rarely enforced (the middle class and their traffic fines aside), because it requires re-arresting the bugger and going through the whole judicial process all over again. Much more difficult than putting an X next to someone's name on the DWP's list.
I admit that perhaps not all the 200,000 completely thought it through though.
This is an excellent idea. Manbearpig is a real threat to humanity and our way of life (i.e. flying to and from our numerous houses being photographed with celebrities). Al Gore should be congratulated for his wisdom. This should be expanded so that Al Gore can send important Manbearpig warnings via our email accounts, mobiles, El Reg accounts, and the messages we scrawl on toilet cubicle doors. Also we should all buy Al Gore another house. Two more houses.
Yours entirely independently
p.p. A Gore
"I would also like my family to benefit from my work when I'm no longer around to provide for them."
So would everyone. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of people - from binmen to ultrapaid execs - their power to earn money dies with them. They content themselves with not blowing all the money they make while alive and leaving that to the kids. Why should arty types be special in that regard?
Re: The content companies started it
If a car you bought legitimately refused to start for 5 minutes each morning while it screamed "STOP STEALING CARS, YOU TERRORIST" from the satnav, then another 5 minutes telling you you should go back to the dealership and buy some more cars before it deigned to drive off, while a pirated car would start instantly, even the car manufacturers would download cars.
"If he'd shouted such a comment in the street then people wouldn't have been surprised by such an outcome"
Yes they would. In fact if he'd shouted it in the street it would have been even less menacing, because in the flesh you can tell when someone is in a murderous rage and when someone is joking.
Well, it couldn't be worse than GTA 4
"Moaty! Iss Gazza! Youse wanna go bowling?"
The only way CEOP's campaign will ever end is if Facebook puts a giant scrolling banner on every page which reads 'JIM GAMBLE JIM GAMBLE JIM GAMBLE JIM GAMBLE JIM GAMBLE', preferably flashing in red. I'd heard of the 'oxygen of publicity' but didn't realise the extent to which some people depend on it to live.
If there is anyone out there still naive enough to believe that there is a difference between this government and the last one, all you need is seven words: "Jim Gamble - Suzi Leather - Martha Lane Fox". Months after the supposed regime change, they all still have jobs.
Ow, my eyes
From now on can we formally refer to MLF as Martha "Green Ink" Lane Fox?
I expect I "lose" quite a lot of money every year because I don't hoard the coupons that fall out of newspapers and magazines. Is it because I am a mental incompetent who needs re-education and counselling to stop my economic self-harm? No, it's because I can't be bothered. It's amazing the extent to which the concept of free will is utterly lost on government bureautards.
If you wanted to tell your Facebook friends about it so badly, couldn't you have just pressed Ctrl-T, gone to facebook.com and typed "Hey guys, check out So Wrong It's Right"?
The problem with this bag of badgers' paws is that in order for an incredibly lazy minority to save about three seconds' typing, everyone else will have to work around a bunch of unnecessary crap.
I thoght the Vatican was in the eurozone.
Good pun, but in all the stories I've read of that ilk, Facebook was the channel used to spread the word. Can't we therefore call it "face-sitting"? I'll just Google it to make sure it's not already taken... oh.
Shah Rukhkhan is one of the most famous and tediously omnipresent actors in the biggest entertainment industry in the world. Bonus, he goes on a chat show in a foreign country, where he can repeat all the anecdotes that the Indian audience will have heard already. And you think his life is so dull that he'd have to make up a "you'll never guess what happened to me in the airport" story in order to have something to say to Jonathan Ross?
"the surgeon estimated the chances of Wei surviving such an injury were "one in ten thousand""
I love media statistics. Did he mean there is a one in ten thousand chance of stabbing someone in the head and missing all the arteries and motor control areas, or did he mean there is a one in ten thousand chance of surviving once someone's put a knife is in that particular position in your head?
It must be Monday because I can't get my head round this at all.
If you wanted to raid an office, and you were hoping not to find anyone there, why not just go after office hours? This has two advntages over the phone book approach: a) you don't have to worry about the remote possibility that more than one person might work in the office, and b) at some point it gets dark and makes it more difficult for passers by to see you breaking in.
The more effort that plod and the screws put in to ensuring small-time scum aren't using phones to post silly messages on the Internet (which their victims don't have to read, even if a gutter-crawling journalist tells them to so they can take a photo of their shocked, tear-stained expression), the less time they spend harrassing the proper criminals using phones to run their business interests from inside.
The Daily Heil and their polit friends get to pretend they've achieved something, important criminals can carry on their business, actual crime increases, which gives the Daily Heil more to write about, and the rest of us can just take our daily dose of watered-down methadone and shut the fuck up. It's win-win!
"The difficulty of obtaining such a closure has already been addressed: as the main site is based in California, this would require agreement from the US authorities, who are quite wedded to the whole free speech thing."
Er, I don't think the Americans' famously unswerving committment to the rights of the individual has much to do with it. I doubt you'd get away with running an equivalent service for drug dealers where people could find local pushers and rate them for quality of product, price, friendly service, etc - even though there'd probably be more interest in it.
This is just a case of the good old special relationship at work. It's not that they believe that the website should remain up, it's just that it isn't doing any harm to Americans so they couldn't care less what our government thinks about it.
For a fleeting moment there TechCrunch actually had some useful content.
"Expect to see millions of web devices, even desktop web devices, in the coming years that completely strip out the Windows layer and use the browser as the only operating system the user needs"
I rather thought you wouldn't approve of that comment. I will say three things in my defence:
1.I am a rational human being, as is Meg Ryan, and I therefore have no wish for her to come to *genuine* harm. However, I consider wanting to watch someone suffer *simulated* violence a fairly understandable impulse after experiencing the very real suffering inflicted by sitting through a film starring Meg Ryan.
2. Her gender has nothing to do with it and I would feel the same way if she were male. (Normally, responding to an accusation that hasn't been made is a sure sign of he doth protest too much, but I know what was going through your head.)
3. Even I actually was a truly sick individual who actually thought that actors should be horribly tortured for making bad films, at least I still wouldn't think Titanic was a good film.
For the love of God, so now whenever the BBC has a guest on, they have to employ someone to hover over their shoulder making sure they don't look at something they're not supposed to? Will they get an existing compliance drone to do it in between manning the Mock The Week Misogyny Alarm or will it be hiring time again?
And suppose they had their "extra precautions" in place and had noticed Dappy scribbling on his arm - are they actually going to stop interviews with (reasonably) major stars because they think the guest looked at a screen? "So Spiggy, what inspired you to write "My Tears Are Crying?" "Well, I've never told anyone this or ever will again, but my dad used to come home drunk and shove umbrellas up my..." "Sorry, we'll have to terminate this interview because our producer is doing online banking over there and I think you were watching her typing her PIN".
Why should it stop with the BBC? I quite often have people in my house who could easily flick through my address book while I wasn't looking. And they haven't been CRB and ISA-checked up the arse as Dappy, as an anti-bullying ambassador, undoubtedly is, so everything the BBC is guilty of, I've done worse.
"Perhaps just just got done doing a house invasion clearing up druggies,pimps and illegals"
Yes, and after they were done busting their stress they went to catch some burglars (and returned the stolen property), clipped some loitering hoodies round the ear, and gave the time of day to a young lady without truncheoning her in the face and calling her a c--t.
Which decade do you live in and can I come live there?
Energy corporates don't want demonstrators ringing their offices whining about pollution. And energy corporates don't want the carbon trading scam, which will see the public paying them billions and billions of pounds to not heat their homes, endangered by reality. Hardly surprising that in their efforts to track down the whistleblower, chuck him in a cell and make an HIV-infected example of him, they've hit the usual number on their speed-dial labelled "Obliging Plod".
Since when was refusing to see someone's film on the grounds that they previously made something crap some kind of martyrdom? Surely it's the opposite - it's just good sense to avoid things you won't enjoy. Particularly as James Cameron shows every sign of an artiste who's become infected with a belief in his own hype.
I refuse to see any film starring Meg Ryan (unless the title contains the words "Saw", "Hostel" or "Entrenching Tool Rampage" - still waiting), and she's only an actress, much less responsible for her films than James Cameron. But I'll still defend that as a rational position to the death.