tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1066383334024622222014-10-05T15:56:19.970+10:00Potential Differencep.d, the blog with an opinion on just about everything.Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.comBlogger177125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-38071498779774647122010-06-12T17:01:00.025+10:002010-06-13T02:06:01.485+10:00Why I Want An iPhone<div style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: left;">Because I am a male, I am inexorably drawn to cool, shiny bits of technology. And unless you have had your head buried in the sand for the past few days, "cool, shiny bits of technology" now includes the <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/151816/2010/06//iphone4.html">iPhone 4</a>.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><img src="http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/111658_iphone.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 415px; height: 300px;" border="0" alt="The new, shiny, orgasm-in-my-pants iPhone 4." /><div style="text-align: left;">Don't get me wrong, I hate <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.apple.com/" title="Apple" rel="homepage">Apple</a> as much as any sane-minded person, and it is for this reason that I have refrained from buying an iPhone until now.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;">I have sat back and watched as countless legions of Apple-lovers have rushed to the shops on launch day to grab the latest "all-new" iPhone. Laughed at those who looked disdainfully at their lowly 3G as they queued for days to get their manicured hands on the 3GS. Stared in open-mouthed wonder at how these people can spend thousands, <i>thousands!</i>, of dollars on each successive model of the same bloody phone, barely months after they bought the last one. And as for the iPad! Christ. The less said about that, the better.</div><div><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></i></div><div>All of that has changed with the iPhone 4. Now I myself am going to be one of those cool people standing in line outside my local telco dealer, hopping from one foot t't'other in a vain attempt to contain my excitement. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, why the massive shift?</div><div><br /></div><div><b>The wait is over...</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>The reason I haven't bought one yet is because I just know that 6-months down the line, Apple will shaft me by selling a better version for the same price. It is my major gripe with Apple; I just cannot justify spending over a thousand dollars on something when I know they are selling me an inferior product early simply to line their coffers. Apple sold you the original iPhone without 3G network support, knowing full well they could release another model in a few months time with it included as standard, for the same price, and that people would still buy it in their droves.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://images.macworld.com/images/news/graphics/151907-iphone4_hero_original.jpg" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 188px; height: 306px;" border="0" alt="" /><div><div>The same can be said of the other models. When they finally did put 3G support on the iPhone (not to be confused with saying the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.apple.com/iphone" title="iPhone" rel="homepage">iPhone 3G</a> or Touch 3G, which means third-generation; 3G is a cellular network), a few months later they made one that was actually fast enough to make use of it, with the 3GS.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>And now we arrive at the latest edition in the guise of the iPhone 4. The reason I want to break my Apple-avoiding trend is because I just don't think they can fit any more on the damn thing. This is finally the iPhone that I can buy without knowing in my heart that it will be rendered useless within a few months. While I am sure they will release a version with proper FaceTime mobile network support down the line (more on that later), its pretty much a non-issue because I highly doubt I will ever use it. You kinda had to have the 3G network support. You kinda had to have the faster system that the 3GS provided. But for once, you kinda don't really need the FaceTime improvements, and so there is no reason to buy the iPhone 4.5 or whatever it will be called. For me, this is the end of the line as far as upgrades go with the iPhone; so I think now is the time to save up and finally get one to see what all the fuss is about.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b>Stop slagging off Apple, tell us what it can do!</b></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Basically, anything the 3GS can do, 4 can do better. It has the same marvelous, annoy-your-friends-by-constantly-showing-it-off multitouch screen that the iPhone is famous for; the same operating system that allows for email, web-browsing and media playing (and now you have multitasking so you can do it all at once); and retains the access to the all-important app store. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">However, the new model boasts a few nice new features that send the want-one factor skyrocketing. If you want to be assaulted by Apple propaganda, questionably correct English and a self-indulgent mastabatory sales pitch, then I suggest you click <a href="http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/">this link</a> to see what Apple themselves have to say. Otherwise, I'll give you a quick summary.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">First of all, I would have to disagree with Apple at putting the FaceTime feature first on their list. Far more impressive is the new 'Retina Display' screen. While the claims that it is simply too brilliant for your feeble human eyes to comprehend smacks just a bit too much of hypery, if the actual numbers are correct, it is a significant leap forward. I am all for a screen that has crystal clear sharpness considering I am going to be staring at it for most of the time I hold the phone in my hand.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><img src="http://images.macworld.com/images/news/graphics/151907-iphone4_video_original.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 188px; height: 289px;" border="0" alt="" /><div style="text-align: left;">Secondly comes the redesigned styling. I must admit that I think, as an object, the iPhone was already a gorgeous thing to look at. With the new metal rim that doubles as the antenna, coupled with the flat glass back (as opposed to the curvy back on the earlier models), its as though the pretty woman has put on some lingerie. If I ever had to showcase a brilliant piece of design, that appeals to me on seemingly every level, I would show them the iPhone 4. Its just stunning, and I want to have sexual relations with it.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So what is this FaceTime thing I've mentioned all about? Well, you know how most top phones have had video-calling for a while now? Yeah. Now the iPhone has it too. Reading the trope Apple has put about it makes you wonder whether Steve Jobs has removed his head from his arse for five minutes to see if its already been done. Quite clearly he hasn't, so if we ignore the sensationalist claims that video-calling is now a reality, we can look at it critically. And the big thing to note is that this only works iPhone 4 to iPhone 4, via wi-fi; which I think makes the whole thing a bit useless. What is the point in having the ability to videophone someone on your mobile when you can't use the mobile phone network? I think we already have something for that. Its called Skype. Correct, you can't Skype on your phone (unless you have the app), but considering the only wi-fi hotspots I generally connect to are at home and at Uni, when I have my netbook with me, its not such an issue; and I am willing to bet its the same sort of situation for a lot of the people buying an iPhone.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Things do look up again when you look at the tech supporting FaceTime; there's a new 5 megapixel camera, with flash (html5 doesn't provide physical illumination, much to Jobs's chagrin), and a front-facing camera. Hardly revolutionary, my LG phone has had these things for years, but its a welcome addition at any rate. Especially if you are the sort of person that needs to justify their existence by taking pictures and videos of themselves, as you now have the iMovie app to make pretty slideshows. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>When will I be able to buy this magnificent piece of technology?</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well that all depends on where you live. Should you happen to reside on the Moon, then you may have to wait for a while. For the Earth-bound among us, it is going to be anywhere between the end of June and the end of July. The US and UK are getting it around June the 24th I think; while those of us in this gloriously sunny nation of Australia will have to wait a bit longer until some unspecified date in July. Which suits me fine as it gives me enough time to save up to buy the damn thing.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, its everything you've always secretly longed for from the iPhone, with cool extra bits to sweeten the deal, and a new design to drool over. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Yes please.</div> <div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top:10px;height:15px"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=f861d6ed-a6e1-4f64-95e1-fad6b5696052" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" style="border:none;float:right" /></a><span class="zem-script more-related pretty-attribution"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://static.zemanta.com/readside/loader.js" defer="defer"></script></span></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-1079199293922315492010-03-01T17:14:00.010+10:002010-03-01T20:01:54.363+10:00What If We Are the Videogame, and God is the Player?<div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Two of my favourite things to complain about have come together in an orgy of potentially epic metaphors and unbridled hatred in textual form. Namely, <i>religious interference </i>and <i>the R18+ debate</i>.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For those of you who do not know, the R18+ Debate is an ongoing discussion by the government's censorship boffins about whether or not to allow Australia to have an 18+ age rating for videogames. Currently, we do not have one, and so any game that is deemed too violent or too mature for a 15+ rating is merely banned. This frustrates Australian gamers because videogames are <a href="http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21219">an even greater media</a> than both the box office and DVDs, which do have the 18+ rating. Every other Westernised country has a classification for these type of games, and it is highly unfair, gamers say, that we should be discriminated against because our government does not know what they are on about.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Which is almost certainly the case. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Currently, the department that governs these sorts of things is under the outdated illusion that videogames are for children. Not so. A survey conducted in the US by the Ipsos MediaCT for the ESA shows that the average age for an American gamer is now 35; players over the age of 18 also take up a much larger proportion than those who are 17 and under (33% versus 18% respectively). In Australia, the average age is a bit lower, at 28; however, more than 50% of gamers are over the age of 18. [You can view the Ipsos findings for yourself <a href="http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/07/17/survey:-average-u.s.-gamer-age-35;-40%25-are-women">here</a>, and the article linked to below for the Australian figures]</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As such, the lack of a category for games rated 'for adults-only' causes a major problem for the gaming community. The arguments of the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson are perhaps the leading view of the anti-18+ group. One can gain an insight using <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/attorney-general-to-veto-r-rating-for-games/story-e6frfro0-1111115654451">this</a> news article, but to summarise, he essentially opposes the classification because he is concerned that there are not enough measures to stop children from accessing this adult content. Which is all social and voter-friendly; who wouldn't vote for a man who wants to keep kids safe?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, I wouldn't vote for him because he is a madman who refuses to see past his own blind, misinformed opinion. He still labours under the view that videogames are for children, when the facts quite clearly indicate that this is not the case. He tarnishes the videogaming community as a bunch of blood-thirsty, adrenaline-fuelled potential murderers. He even once claimed that he is more scared of gamers than he is of bikies (gangs of bikers that murder people and intimidate). What soundbitish nonsense. I wonder if he is even aware that the Wii exists, in all its family orientated goodness? Is he aware that just over 40% of gamers are women? I think not.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">His concerns over children being allowed to access this adult content is morally applaudworthy, but in practise entirely irrelevant. The state smacks a big 18+ sticker on the front of the box and it is then up to the retailer to check the I.D of the purchaser to see if they are, in fact, 18 plus. If they are not, then you refuse to sell them the game. Job done. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The only way that kids under 18 could acquire these games is through their stupid parents. The same stupid parents that need the state to keep adult content out of their child's hands, when, really, it is up to them. If your child asks you to buy Killing Murdering Assassin II, then surely the title would warn you that perhaps they shouldn't be playing this game. And to quote myself from an earlier post, doesn't the fact that the boxart shows the image of a ninja slashing people to bits with a sword larger than the Burj Khalifa alert you to the possibility that this game is not appropriate for your child? If you do not think the game is suitable, then you don't buy it.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The 18+ classification seems to work just fine for movies, and for gamers in other countries, but it is the arrogance and unwillingness to face the facts shown by Minister Attkinson that continues to ruin the Australian gamer's hope of fair treatment.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And now, forever wanting to give their opinion on something they know nothing about, the Christians have waded into the battle. If one clicks on the post title above, or on this piece of text <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/gamers-push-for-r18-category-angers-christians-20100301-pcvh.html">here</a>, then one will be taken to the article at the centre of today's post on The Sydney Morning Herald's website.</div><div style="text-align: left; "><br /></div><div style="text-align: left; ">Read it? Good. Perhaps you too are staring in open-mouthed bewilderment at the biblical levels of idiocy put forth by the Australian Christian Lobby. I know I did when I first read it. Then I laughed the laugh of a man who had read the most fundamentally flawed argument ever conceived by humankind. But that's Christianity for you, so I suppose I should not be surprised. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Take, for instance, this: </div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;"><blockquote>"The consultation process appears to be structured in a way to primarily encourage participation from people with a pre-existing understanding of the R18+ gaming debate, or from those who have a prior stake or interest in its outcome," the Christian lobby wrote in its submission. "It seems to be geared strongly in favour of gaming interests."</blockquote></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Seriously, do they not see the flaw in their argument? They are complaining that the debate is favouring those who already know of the R18+ gaming discussion. So, what...? ... the people who know what they are talking about? The people that it affects? The people that wanted the debate in the first place? The people who want their voices heard on a subject that matters to them? I was under the impression that these are exactly the sort of people one needs to gauge the opinion of if one wants an informed discussion.<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: normal; font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:16px;">"Certainly the predictable weight of numbers for submissions in favour of the legalisation of R18+ games will be presented by gaming interests as conclusive evidence of widespread community support for their sale and distribution in Australia, when no such support actually exists."</span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, it seems fairly obvious that a 90-year old farmer living in the rural north-west is not going to give two scrotums about whether Australia has an 18+ rating or not. So why then does his opinion seem to matter more to the Christian Lobby than that of a gamer who is fully aware of the ramifications that such a rating would entail? The introduction of this rating affects primarily gamers, not the ordinary public. Certainly it does not affect those who do not play videogames. If they wish to submit their opinion on the matter then that is entirely within their rights. But suggesting that we take the views of people who the law would not affect, who know nothing of the debate and who in most likelihood couldn't care less, over the opinion of an informed person, there is something deeply flawed.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The argument that an 18+ rating for games exposes children to adult content is absurd. It is a protection law at its very heart, to restrict who has access to it, so why then is it deemed by Minister Attkinson and the Christian cohort to be a morally wrong and dangerous piece of legislation? I do not understand this. I do not understand why Attkinson thinks it is his duty to take the responsibility of protecting children from mature content out of the hands of the parent and into his own. I do not understand why the Christian Lobby felt the need to get involved. Who next? The Jews? Homosexuals? Does videogaming incite prejudice against the RSPCA? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It is not the duty of Attkinson or the Christian Lobby to tell adults how to live their lives. Adults are quite capable of making their own decisions, and to choose the content that they wish to view. It is not up to Attkinson to decide that videogames are for children, or that they should be restricted because he personally does not agree with them. The 46,000 people who signed the petition calling for the rating outweigh his 1, and also shows that he is not in tune with what the public wants. I thought it was the job of a politician, a <i>senior</i> politician at that, to do what the public wants. To Attkinson, I say this: this is a democracy, not a dictatorship; the reason you have power is purely because it is easier to get things done by having one person represent many. It does not mean your opinion is worth more, nor that you hold more of an authority than any of the voters who elected you.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The quicker he remembers that, the quicker we will have a 18+ rating, and then Aussie gamers will have the fair treatment they deserve.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-73632407000402257682010-02-26T20:11:00.004+10:002010-03-01T00:07:04.338+10:00Christinsanity<div><br /></div>"Do you believe in God?"<div><br /></div><div>You would not believe (or perhaps, if you're religious, you would), how often I get asked that question. A day does not go by at University when some lanky communist, wearing what can only be described as a sack made into the vague shape of a t-shirt, spots me in the crowd and makes it his mission to drag me over and complain to me about how I am an ungodly specimen of humanity and that the only way to redeem myself is to drop to my knees at once and say the Hail Mary twenty billion times. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now I would rather do the Heil Hitler twenty billion times than listen to yet more Christian propaganda. Do they not think that I already know what God has to offer? That I don't already know about how good He is? I mean, seriously, I can pretty much guarantee that 90% of the people who can read and write in the West know about Christianity. They know what it represents. They know all about how He is the 'one true way' to salvation, and that His kingdom will allow us to live forever and ever, amen. </div><div><br /></div><div>And yet, a majority of those people are still not Christian.</div><div><br /></div><div>So obviously they don't need telling about Christianity as they already know it exists and are aware of what it can do for you. We can thus assume that they don't want to be Christian, otherwise they would be. It is a tautology at its best: I am not a Christian because I am not a Christian.</div><div><br /></div><div>So why do these religious types insist on manhandling people such as myself over to their wooden stools ablaze with Christian paraphernalia? I have my headphones in and I am walking faster than most small cars can go at top speed, as usual. Clearly I do not wish to engage in communication, much less listen to a diktat. It is arrogance of the highest order for them to think that its acceptable to interrupt me and drag me away from my activities; that their time is worth more than my own. I can assure you, it isn't.</div><div><br /></div><div>The cure for this is simple. In the short-term, while you are standing there listening to their nasal whining, hold up your hand to stop them and then proceed to pick apart each and every one of the flaws in their religion; their hypocrisy at preaching a world of peace and tolerance, when they refuse to allow a homosexual, or heaven forbid, <i>a woman</i>, to become anything more than a tea lady in the ranks of the Church; how the Church is one of the richest institutions in the World, and yet they ask you make a donation; how instead of sending something useful to impoverished African nations, like water or food or batteries, they send a missionary to teach them that at least when they die of malnutrition, they will go to Hell for all the people they've had to murder to keep their family safe from tyrants; about how the Pope openly spoke out against the supposed evils of the condom, when it is one of the best ways of stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa (the best way being, surely, to not have sex) and for couples to avoid having children that they do not want and cannot support while still being able to share that intimate bond; how they can say that prayer is a much better solution to a problem than the solution itself; how they have done more to impede scientific progress than any other organisation on Earth; how they think they can indoctrinate and spread propaganda to such a degree that would make the Nazis jealous, and with arrogance that surpasses even the French.</div><div><br /></div><div>Do I need to go on, or has the Jesus-lover started stuttering and crying as you tear down his beloved Church? At this point he will actively will you to go away and so you turn around and leave him in a quivering wreck. Job done.</div><div><br /></div><div>I must make it absolutely plain that I have no qualms with religion at all. It is an essential part of humanity. What I do take issue with is the Christian Church, and all of its 'spread-the-word' minions. That is not right, and that is what should be erased.</div><div><br /></div><div>But enough for today, I'll take the time to clarify my stance on religion and life in general in the next few days, and report on the first Science vs Religion debate I attend.</div><div><br /></div><div>To be continued...</div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-32621049971318483202010-02-23T18:46:00.010+10:002010-02-23T20:02:38.618+10:00OrthodoxymoronicalIt has been far, far too long since I clicked that "New Post" button. Far too long indeed. My hands are red with the blame, I assure you. <div><br /></div><div>With the world in ruins once more, and new topics to cover, I have again decided to enter the world of mercilessly harsh opinions, scathing remarks and to wade into battle equipped with a wit so sharp as to cut through the lies and pierce right to the heart of the matter. Impossibly epic metaphors. Imagery that defies all mortal description. The megaphone screamed out my name, and I have answered the call. I am older, wiser and fuelled by rage that would make someone I loved whimper in fear and cause souls to weep above. </div><div><br /></div><div>And it feels damn good to be back.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, what topic better to kick off this new phase than the most controversial of them all?</div><div><br /></div><div>Science vs Religion.</div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></b></div><div>My views on religion have been well documented in the past. Many an article has been posted pontificating my distaste of Creationism, indoctrination and the Catholic Church in general. I have seen what it is doing to us, and indeed has done to us throughout history, and I want to cut the puppet strings they hold to our souls once and for all. </div><div><br /></div><div>But can one be religious, and also a scientist? Is it possible to believe in an all-powerful super-being governing the Universe when the laws of physics and quantum theory do the job just as well? Sure, it may be easier to ascribe the wonder of the Universe around us to an intelligent supreme deity rather than the inherent fuzziness of quantum theory; science that micro waves you insane, with complex mathematics to split your sanity like a blade cuts in your brain (ok, stretching this a bit now).</div><div><br /></div><div>This semester at University, I am taking a course on this very topic. And so it is my intention that over the next few weeks, I shall be writing on the developments in this topic for you all to enjoy and think about. I, of course, am slightly bias in the sense that I find it hard to reconcile science with religion. Believe me, I have tried. There is a debate being held soon at my University which covers this issue, and I am intrigued as to what the invited Christian scientists have to say on the matter. How is it that they can stare incontrovertible fact in the face, and yet still believe that "oh God did it"? I imagine it will get rather heated as a result; with some scientists shrieking out their Christian beliefs that sounds like forks on a plate, and on the other side, the Atheist scientists scratching their blackboards with hate.</div><div><br /></div><div>Whatever the outcome though, its gonna be entertaining, and I hope you can stick with p.d over the next few weeks to see what happens. </div><div><br /></div><div>And yeah, I am just that awesome.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-66326067043463447272009-09-22T13:58:00.002+10:002009-09-22T14:05:18.637+10:00I Won't Leave You Falling...I won't begin with an apology, as that is all these posts ever begin with; so instead I shall just give it to you straight.<div><br /></div><div>You may have noticed that I have not been writing for some time now, and basically this trend is set to continue. I just do not have the time any more. And after something like 160 posts, I am sure you have plenty to keep you entertained.</div><div><br /></div><div>I will occasionally post stuff now and then, but nothing too major.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, keep checking back from time to time, and enjoy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Chris</div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-66116061336753097082009-08-07T22:10:00.006+10:002009-08-14T01:04:49.855+10:00CreationIn the beginning, there was Jack Bauer.<div><br /></div><div>Jack Bauer created Himself, and henceforth does not need to explain why He was there in the beginning; which in of itself is an arbitrary notion as time is highly curved on cosmic scales due to the gravitational pull generated by His own awesomeness; insomuch that it loops back on itself, and thus He has always existed, and always will. He defies mortal description, and therefore He cannot be explained.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jack Bauer decided to amuse Himself by creating five others to provide Him with entertainment. And thus, on the first day; Matthew Bellamy was created in order to fashion music. On the second day, Gregory House was created in order to provide witty remarks. On the third day, Stephen Fry was created in order to be omniscient. On the fourth day, Jeremy Clarkson was created to be the most quotable being alive. And finally, on the fifth day, Perry Cox was created to be the greatest philosopher.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jack Bauer saw this, and was pleased. He rested for two days.</div><div><br /></div><div>He decided to share these wonderful talents with the World, and so on the seventh day he made the Earth. Humans evolved, and the five compatriots of Jack Bauer began to amuse them with their skills. The humans were at first unable to comprehend the epicness, and worshipped several false Gods in their confusion.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jack Bauer forgave them of this, and decided to make it easier on the humans by crafting the four compatriots into human form, and sending them down as saviours. Humanity was slow to recognise its misguidedness, but eventually the true way will be revealed.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jack Bauer saw this, and was content.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is how the world is.</div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-77971508928545987682009-07-15T16:42:00.013+10:002009-07-17T18:53:39.162+10:00War... What Is It Good For?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_01/troopsDM0803_468x432.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 268px; height: 232px;" src="http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_01/troopsDM0803_468x432.jpg" border="0" alt="Troops in Afghanistan" title="Bring the noise!" /></a>And in keeping with the lyrical tradition, the answer is "absolutely nothing." Of course, our American cousins would instead reply: "War is good for unleashing our own special brand of justice upon all those who threaten freedom and democracy." Or, in simpler terms, "We want their oil." But anyway, the American desire to fuel the ever larger-cars for their ever-larger population is not the issue at hand...<div><br /><div><div><a href="http://anorganisedmess.blogspot.com/">Luke</a> has issued the Phenomenal Four with a challenge close to his heart; basically, is the continued war in Afghanistan (and by extension Iraq) justified? Has it ever been justified? Do we support it? My answer is simple.</div><div><br /></div><div>No.</div><div><br /></div><div>I will use this opportunity to let it be known that I have absolutely no idea why we decided to go to war against Afghanistan. As far as I know, it is full of bad people called Talibans; and it was our job to depose them from their reign of terror.</div><div><br /></div><div>More than half a decade later, they are still there. In other words, it has taken more time to find a bunch of people with ridiculous beards who are playing a hardcore version of Hide and Seek than it took for the world to start, fight and end World War Two.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now I'm no expert, but I believe that this means that we are not winning.</div><div><br /></div><div>Many would have us think that this is because of the under-equipped nature of the British Army. There aren't enough APCs or Chinooks to get from one side of the battlefield to the other. Troops are running out of bullets with which to fire at the enemy. Barracks are now little more than converted portaloos. </div><div><br /></div><div>No doubt this is a sorry state of affairs for the Army of a nation that once ruled the world and is still among the most advanced and capable on the planet.</div><div><br /></div><div>I do not wish to sound callous and ungrateful for what these soldiers are doing, but the idea that the British Army is under-equipped to fight this war looks very embarrassing when you consider who they are up against. </div><div><br /></div><img src="http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set3/taliban%20fighters.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 188px;" border="0" alt="" title="Oh, hello." /><div>The Taliban soldiers wade into battle with a rusty AK47, a towel for a helmet and the occasional RPG7. And yet the Army is <i>still</i> finding itself in a losing battle. They are still prescribing to the American idea that any war can be won by simply throwing ever increasing amounts of resources at it. A tactic that is failing.</div><div><br /></div><div>Naturally, our first instinct is to blame the government for this; and not the woefully inept battlefield commanders who seemingly couldn't figure out a working strategy if it fell on them. And I am consistently surprised at the outrage needlessly aimed at the government when one of the soldiers dies. </div><div><br /></div><div>Well, I'm sorry, but what did you think was going to happen? It is like being surprised that when you jump into water, you get wet. But no, it is "Full inquest" this. "Reports" that. Why? He or she was a soldier, in a battlefield, fighting against people with lots of firepower... and they got killed. What exactly is there to inquestise? </div><div><br /></div><div>These must be the same people who demand that the troops be equipped with the latest safety gear in which to fight, rather than simply providing them with a very large gun and telling them not to come back until they've won. The obsession with "safety" on a battlefield is so ludicrous its not even funny. I mean, soldiers (and by that I mean "ordinary people forced to fight") during the First World War were made to do battle in horrendous conditions that even Bear Grylls would think twice about. </div><div><br /></div><div>And yet they managed to win the greatest war yet known in a much shorter time, against a bigger enemy and without any health and safety gear at all.<br /><div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, I propose a solution to the Army's woes. In short, we should stop letting criminals and people who have a similar IQ to the prevailing temperature in Celsius at the time into the armed forces. Y'know, the people who only need a bullet-proof vest because they hold the gun the wrong way round. </div><div><br /></div><div>Instead, we should have a small, yet highly-trained and highly-equipped advanced tactical assault force. Something similar perhaps to the SAS. Only more epic. I have even thought of a name for it: C.H.A.O.S - Covert and Heavy Assault Operations Squad.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://www.battlefieldlivekernow.co.uk/images/sas-patch.JPG" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 221px;" border="0" alt="" title="'oo dares, wins" /><div>Withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan and let them go home to their inevitably new-born child. Then, give all of the thousands of troop's equipment to this super-force of perhaps a hundred professionals. Drop them into Afghanistan, tell them to find and eliminate the Talibans by any means they like and then sit back to enjoy the show.</div><div><br /></div><div>Solid Snake was dead right; "War has changed". And therefore the way we fight our wars has to change too. If the traditional ideas are failing, which they obviously are, then you adapt. Think like the enemy. In the modern era, armies are nigh-on useless; pointless shows of supposed strength. Armies are good against other armies, not against a ragtag group of hardline extremists who are quite willing to blow themselves up to achieve their goals. </div><div><br /></div><div>That sums it all up I think. Imagine the Taliban trying to martyr themselves if they had health and safety regulations.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hahaha.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div></div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-70389010960413243142009-07-05T12:43:00.003+10:002009-07-05T13:47:22.448+10:00Driving License to Thrill<div><br /></div><div>In an astounding display of wizardry, Lee has come up with yet another ultimate challenge for the Phenomenal Four.</div><div><br /></div><div>Our task for today is as simple as the last... "<i>what is the best car?</i>"</div><div><br /></div><div>Typically, Lee went for the Porsche September the Eleventh, because it is brash and powerful; all the things that he himself isn't, and therefore he must be compensating for something. Luke went for the Golf GTI, mainly because it is the car that we both learnt to drive in. And Ross decided on the... well actually his post is even later than mine so I don't know yet. Figuring his unnerving love of American Handegg, I am quietly worried that he will choose some ghastly muscle car. But we shall see.</div><div><br /></div><div>I, on the other hand, have gone for a classic; an icon. For a car that is worthy of the best in Her Majesty's Secret Service. One that radiates coolness. A car that is impossibly good looking: the Jessica Alba of vehicles; the Angelina Jolie of motorised transport. And best of all it is a properly <i>British</i> car. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ladies, Gentlemen and Transgendered readers, pray silence please, for... </div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>The Aston Martin DB5.</b></div></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.luxist.com/media/2009/03/aston-martin-db5-1.jpg" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 324px; height: 268px;" border="0" alt="" /><div>You can keep your technically impressive German Porches or Golfs. This thing is as British as the Queen drinking a pint of Bass, in a pub, in cockney London.</div><div><br /></div><div>And unlike those Teutonic pieces of metal, this car has that most important quality to look for... a soul. It knows that it's upper-class. It knows it is handsome, and that if it were a human it would be described as "suave".</div><div><br /></div><div>I really could end it there. Do I actually need to go on as to why this is the best car ever? It is British; it is several levels beyond cool and its the archetypal Bond car.</div><div><br /></div><div>Well I suppose I should go on, because I need to clarify what I mean by "best car ever". The DB5 is not the fastest car in the world. It doesn't have the best acceleration. Nor would it win in a race against a modern day car. If you watch the video below you will find that it is the slowest around the Top Gear track.</div><div><br /></div><div>But that is not the point. The DB5 is not meant to be the fastest, or the greatest accelerator. It is meant to be the coolest car on the planet. It is meant to take your eyeballs and use the gravitational field generated by its own awesomeness to make sure that they stay fixed on it. You have to admit, it is a seriously good looking car. Better than the identikit Porches or the, let's face it, chavtastic <i>hatchback</i> that is the Golf. I would go as far to say that it is the prettiest car ever made. This is as classically good looking as Audrey Hepburn; even 40 years on, it is still up there with the most attractive.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/images/aston_martin_db5_large.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 162px;" border="0" alt="" /><div>Unlike Lee and Luke, who, as they decided to choose German cars means that they have an obsession with numbers, I'm not going to bother with the stats because they are entirely irrelevant. I have no doubt that either of the Krautish cars would beat the Aston at any 0-60 time or top speed test you'd care to mention. The issue of price is also utterly ridiculous because this is a classic car from 40 years ago, and so costs around a hundred thousand pounds; and you could buy 5 Golfs for that.</div><div><br /></div><div>And why bother quoting you statistics when they are easily available via the power of Google? But because I am kind, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_DB5"><b>here</b></a> is the link to the Wikipedia page. I mean, I'm hardly going to copy and paste the content of another website (looks sternly at Lee), as that is not what you have come here to read. I have not rambled on about "dry-sump camshafts" or something equally as ridiculous. And I don't need to provide real world examples from satisfied Golf customers such as Mr Abdugduhgwengo. I have simply given my opinion, backed up by reasons (looks sternly at a different Lee), and not a cold analysis of a set of figures that tell you nothing about the car.</div><div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately this pretty much ruins the "scoreboard" idea of Lee's. So to make up for that deficit, I have decided that he can use these ones instead:</div><div><br /></div><div>0-60 = 0.000002 seconds.</div><div>Top speed= 1 billion and twelve miles an hour.</div><div>Price = £1.54.</div><div>Engine = 12 litre V18.</div><div>Fuel Consumption = 1643 miles to the gallon.</div><div>Emissions = nothing. </div><div><br /></div><div>As I am now guaranteed to win, I can leave you the views of the only man that matters; Jeremy Clarkson...</div><div><br /><object width="450" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iQ-OAlvLTx8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iQ-OAlvLTx8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="450" height="295"></embed></object><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">---</div><div><br /></div><div>Don't forget to check <a href="http://thephenomenalfour.blogspot.com/">http://thephenomenalfour.blogspot.com</a> sometime this week to see the results :)</div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-23535969257052738532009-06-21T22:04:00.016+10:002009-06-29T18:42:08.283+10:00myTunes<div><br /></div><div>It seems that, astoundingly, Lee over at <a href="http://surprisinglybewildered.blogspot.com/">Surprisingly Bewildered!</a> has come up with a suggestion. He challenged the Phenomenal Four to come up with a list of 25 songs of our own choice. Sounds simple doesn't it? Well the twist is that there are 5 categories we have to fill (Happy, Sad, Love, Guilty Pleasures and a category of our choosing), with our top 5 in each category.</div><img src="http://www.basefm.co.nz/base09/images/stories/itunes-logo.png" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 156px; height: 156px;" border="0" alt="" /><div><br /></div><div>5 top songs x 5 categories = 25 songs.<div><br /></div><div>It is maths at its most epic.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, as many of you will recall, I am a huge fan of the British band 'Muse'. I may have once described them as "orgasmically fantastic". As such, you will forgive me if a majority of the songs I will put forward are theirs. </div><div><br /></div><div>The songs are in italics, and most of them link to the song on YouTube so you can have a listen. I've also included some reasons as to why I've chosen that particular song; a process that is simply unfathomable to Iain Lee, because he is an idiot who can't write and doesn't understand common sense.</div><div><br /></div><div>Err, anyway. To business! </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Happy</u></b></div><div><ol><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrROiUNwgCM">Bliss</a></i> by Muse - Now I have chosen this song because it is simply unbridled happiness in musical form. It <i>is</i> called 'Bliss' after all.</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHKSrS8vJyI&feature=related">Butterflies and Hurricanes</a></i> by Muse - The lyrics should inspire even the lowest of people to get up and change the world. It is incredibly uplifting.</li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inW91qRDGwI&feature=related"><i>Feeling Good</i></a> by Various - Sort of a given in this list. The song linked to is the Muse cover, but it has been done so many times by so many people that there isn't really a definitive version.</li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts"><i>I'm a Believer</i></a> by The Monkees - it is just a good song to bop along to dontchya think?</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ljFaKRTrI">Still Alive</a></i> by Portal - Anyone who doesn't like Portal, or indeed the fantastic closing credits music is dead inside, officially.</li></ol><div><b><u>Sad</u></b></div><div><ol><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: none;"><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2I0UHcrWoo">Goodbye My Lover</a> </i>by James Blunt - For some reason, I am pathologically incapable of listening to this song without crying. Partially this is due to the fact that it is by James Blunt, who is a massive cock; but also the thought of saying goodbye to a lover on their deathbed is extremely painful.</span></li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR91Rj1ZN1M"><i>Mad World</i></a> by Gary Jules - While I consider the Tears for Fears <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZRib_aAQFQ">original</a> to be better, this is a sad song in its own right.</li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOVkYAxHvkk"><i>Here's to You</i></a> by Ennio Morricone - The ending theme for MGS4. The simple repetition of the one verse, coupled with the sad tone of the song actually made me cry as I finished MGS4 for the first time.</li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ6r-r09mM&feature=related"><i>Everybody Hurts</i></a> by REM - I'm sure you know this song. No real need to explain is there?</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxM4EbN9lMY">The Beginning is the End is the Beginning</a></i> by The Smashing Pumpkins - It is a suitably downbeat song, and one of my favourites. Nerds will recognise it from the Watchmen trailer.</li></ol><div><b><u>Love</u></b></div><div><ol><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBo_hePniW8">Endlessly</a></i> by Muse - The fantastic lyrics, coupled with the slow tone make this a great love song in my eyes. Or in my ears... oh you know what I mean.</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp3_a-PMTw">Supermassive Black Hole</a></i> by Muse - "Oooh you set my soul alight..."; need I say more?</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxye7OiL6Gs">Time is Running Out</a></i> by Muse - It contains some of my favourite lyrics... Particularly the sixth verse from the top in the 'More Info' section of the video.</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVTN5o9Kgu8">Sexual Healing</a></i> by Marvin Gaye - Why d'ya think? It has the word 'sex' in the title...</li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGC003Xz3CY"><i>I Will Always Love You</i></a> by Dolly Parton/Whitney Houston - I couldn't think of a fifth so I Googled "love songs". This was the only one in the list that I recognised.</li></ol><div><b><u>Guilty Pleasures</u></b></div><div><ol><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3uxIF5F0Nk">Closer</a></i> by Nine Inch Nails - The lyrics to this are quite extreme, if you are easily offended. I was tempted to put this in the love section, but I think it is more appropriate here.</li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_2_WNWdhDI"><i>Points of Authority/99 Problems</i></a> by Jay-Z /Linkin Park - It has Jay-Z in it, which usually makes me want to run in the opposite direction, screaming madly... but as it was a mix with Linkin Park I actually quite enjoy it. I am thoroughly ashamed I assure you.</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCRmC972pkM">Hold My Finger</a></i> by SikTh - Again, another fairly mad and extreme song lyrically. I love the ending, hence why it is in this list.</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdvmw4FRzQ8">Break Me Shake Me</a></i> by Savage Garden - Mmm, I quite like some of Savage Garden. They're from Brisbane I'll have you know, which helps. I suppose this is the time to admit that I like Sting as well...</li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bcRCCg01I"><i>Jupiter</i></a> by Gustav Holst - An epic piece of classical music. I like the Jupiter one because it is upbeat, but I think the "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bcRCCg01I&feature=related">Mars</a>" one is just as fantastic. In fact, both are at number 5, it is too hard to choose.</li></ol><div>And so we come to my choice as the fifth and final category...</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Fight Songs</u></b></div><div><ol><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjVx8Sguy40">Die Motherfucker Die</a></i> by Dope - Surely the title says it all? I am imaging this category as songs you'd want to play as you were going into battle, so wishing death to the opposition isn't a bad move is it?</li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSRZRhGKSwM&feature=fvw"><i>Love Lost in a Hail of Gunfire</i></a> by Bleeding Through - I absolutely love this song. I interpret it that the tempo is meant to be the heartbeat of a soldier going into battle, against an enemy that he loves to hate. (Unfortunately, the video linked to has removed the swearing, which is annoying and disjoints some of the song. Oh well, listen to the live versions if you want to hear it as it was intended to be heard).</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C64FBkb_gRg">The Fight Song</a></i> by Marilyn Manson - Again, it is all in the title. The repeated shouts of "Fight!" at the end are especially epic.</li><li><i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHWicNDkbpw">Feuer Frei</a></i> by Rammstein - The title means "Open Fire" in German, and is suitably fighty. "Bang bang"...</li><li> <i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJqLQkODKnk&feature=related">Duel </a></i>by Konami - Ok, it isn't really a song... but the boss battle music from the original Metal Gear Solid is among the best videogame music around. And it is still incredibly epic. (Or if you prefer, you have "<i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIyhvu962Fc&feature=related">Encounter</a></i>", which is good if you are running away).</li></ol><div>And there you have it. My contribution to the 25. If you disagree, or have a suggestion of your own, feel free to post a comment. Read the other Phenomenal Four's articles first though to see if your song is in their own choices.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh. Actually. I suppose I should include some sort of nanny-state, health and safety warning messagy thing telling you that a few of the preceding songs contained swearing. Sorry about that.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let the discussion commence!!!</div><div><br /></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-48954760121820162202009-06-21T18:17:00.005+10:002009-06-22T00:38:57.908+10:00Potential is Different, Once MoreYou may have noticed some aesthetic changes to the blog over the past day or so. That's because I like to update the look of p.d every once in a while to keep it interesting. Looking at the same old boring layout day after day can become, well, boring; hence the changes I shall handily list below so you can look out for them...<div><ul><li>Using some html hacks and general awesomery, I've altered it from a two-column to a three-column layout. This means that I can put stuff on two sidebars on each side of the main blog section which displays the articles. Currently I have just separated the widgets I had up before between the two sidebars, but later on I'll add some other cool stuff and perhaps make it look less cluttered. </li><li>What I have tried to do is put my profile info (favourites, blog archive etc) on the left, and interactive stuff on the right. It is still being changed so bear with it for the moment.</li><li>Actually the cluttering is an issue; there is a lot of text when you load it up, and this can be overwhelming and distracting. This is why I have tried to put as much colour at the top as possible to try and reduce the busy-ness. If you can think of anything else that will reduce the clutter, perhaps a slideshow or something, let me know and I'll see what I can do.</li><li>As a preliminary measure that works quite well anyway, it is a welcome return of the Picture of the Day! May your cheers echo throughout the land. Yeah, I'll post a new picture whenever I can.</li><li>The blog header is a whole lot wider, and now covers the three columns.</li><li>There is a little banner thing above the posts, just basically telling you how to read. If you click on it it takes you to the Feedburner RSS site.</li><li>There is a thin grey line around each section in my sidebar to try and help keep things separate; otherwise it would all appear to blur into one mash of white text and would generally be hard to read. If there are any issues regarding lookability of the text, let me know and I'll see at I can do.</li><li>I have added my Twitter feed to the right sidebar, underneath the search box and brightly coloured subscription links. It is shrouded in a semi-transparent blue (an effect that took me about half an hour to code right), and features the latest updates. I will use this to inform you of minor changes and the general status of the blog on a day-to-day basis. </li><li>As far as I know that is it... The new layout is still in "beta"-testing, as I am changing the look and feel of stuff as I go. If you do have any suggestions, criticisms or whathaveyou, feel free to post a comment or drop me an email.</li></ul><div>Have a good day.</div><div><br /></div><div>Chris</div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-1295613765934872252009-06-11T12:48:00.024+10:002009-06-18T01:50:15.194+10:00Global Boring Can't Come Soon Enough...<div><br /></div><div>Today is a bitterly cold day.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>This is the first time that I have worn socks indoors for close to 8 months. It is also the first time that I have kept them on whilst in bed as well. Actually, thinking about it, I believe they've been on for close to twenty-four hours now. I am thus supremely reluctant to peel them off in-case the Americans designate them as a biological doomsday weapon and lock me up in Guantanamo Bay for a thousand years.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/18/18kangaroo_wideweb__470x350,2.jpg" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 140px;" border="0" alt="" title="It is actually a man in a suit. Kanagroos don't exist. It is all a lie. Tell everyone." /><div>By which time I suppose global warming will have raised the temperature by a few degrees, and I'll be nice and toasty again. So at least that is something to look forward to during the daily beatings.</div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, I loathe to turn this blog into a diary as that would be intensely boring for all three of you who my hit counter tells me read it daily, but I must let it be known that I am writing today to take my mind off the shite week I have had. I happen to enjoy writing very much, hence the epic tomes you are welcome to browse through and laugh merrily at using the search box or the archive links over there on the right. So I have decided to cheer myself up a bit and to write today about some of the things that have shone through the darkness and made me laugh this past week.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>Labour is not so much a party... more a funeral.</i></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Primarily that would be the epic fail experienced by the Labour Party, of which the latest debacle can be read about <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096624.stm"><b>here</b></a>. Not content with simply ruining Great Britain, or having a leader who has all the charm and charisma of a mouldy piece of cheese, the Labour Party decided that it wished to be beaten in the polls by the BNP. For any foreign readers; being beaten by the BNP in an election is a bit like being vomited on by a tramp in terms of embarrassment. They are the epitome of racist, bigoted arseholes. They wish to cleanse the nation of all non-white, non-middle class people using a policy that perhaps even Hitler would have thought twice about.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/4/4c/OldRacistLady.JPG" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 137px; height: 165px;" border="0" alt="" title="BNP, or PMT?" /><div>If Gordon Brown manages to doggedly hang onto his job 'til the end of the year then I will collapse in surprise. In fact, why he hasn't <i>already</i> been kicked out is a mystery. I don't think I am exaggerating here by saying that nobody likes him or would vote for him in an election; indeed a vote for Brown is a sure sign of madness in my book. Up until now Labour has managed to struggle on, but after this embarrassing result, I don't think they will last much longer; certainly they will lose the next election. And that ladies and gentlemen, is something to smile about.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><b><i>Kickin' the Balls</i></b></div><div><br /></div><div>What else has caught my attention this week? Well, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8096738.stm"><b>this</b></a> twat has: Cristiano Ronaldo. Now I am sorry, but who in their right mind would pay such an exorbitant amount of money for that tosser? A Labour Party voter maybe, as you would have to be window-licking mad. Do they not see that he is a talentless, ugly, cocky, self-obsessed penis? Saying that, I would also like to give him eighty million pounds.</div><div><br /></div><div>To the face.</div><div><br /></div><div>The salary of footballers has long been a bugbear of mine. I literally do not understand why we give out massive sums of money to someone who kicks a ball around for a few minutes and falls over a lot. I know that they provide almost a public service by giving men in Yorkshire something to talk about down t'pub, but why so much? Why not just £500,000? I could quite happily get by on that amount. And if I couldn't, unlike the football players of course, I could easily make millions more by investing smartly. </div><div><br /></div><img src="http://www.4thegame.com/media/00/03/41/terrycries.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 150px; height: 206px;" border="0" alt="" title="He just saw Rooney shirtless." /><div>This is because the average footballer has the IQ of a small North African doormouse. Listening to Wayne Rooney pathetically attempt to string a coherent sentence together is like watching an ape grunting for a banana. John Terry simply starts crying at any given opportunity, perhaps hoping that someone will take pity on him and buy him shiny things. It would be sad if it wasn't so damn hilarious.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>This is the End of the World, and I'm Feeling Fine...</i></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Oh and if the global recession, impending nuclear annihilation by the North Koreans and a swine flu pandemic wasn't enough doom and gloom for you, then look no further than <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8093005.stm"><b>this</b></a>. Yes indeed, according to some crazy French scientists, in a billion years or so we could collide with either Venus or Mars (or maybe both!), with the planet being consumed in a maelstrom of cataclysm and fury.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh no.</div><div><br /></div><div>Everything about this news story makes me want to chuckle and write a letter of complaint. For instance, the very headline means that you can take the report with a pinch of salt. "Tiny Chance" is scientific parlance for "Won't Happen". </div><div><br /></div><div>There is a "tiny chance" that you will win the lottery on your first go. There is a "tiny chance" that the Large Hadron Collider will create a black hole that will pull the whole planet into a crushing oblivion. There's a "tiny chance" that Kevin McLeod, of the popular Channel 4 television show Grand Designs, will burst forth from a birthday cake, singing '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Ekho8nU9U">Bat Out of Hell</a>', and wearing only a fireman's hat. Oi, stop drooling.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://wskg.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834bff11969e2010534be65df970c-800wi" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 260px; height: 140px;" border="0" alt="" title="''An artists impression''- read: ''Because we don't have an actual photograph of the Earth exploding...''" /><div>In other words, even if this supposed collision could happen tomorrow, then the likelihood of an impact would be nigh on infinitesimal. But as it stands, it is at least a billion years or so away yet. And to put that in perspective, a billion years in an extremely long time. It is four times as long a period of time as since when the dinosaurs first appeared. Not died; <i>appeared</i>. If we could travel at the speed of light, we could be visiting millions of other galaxies in such a time. </div><div><br /></div><div>A billion years, then, is so far down the line that it is entirely irrelevant to humankind. And I do mean entirely irrelevant. There is nothing we can do to the planet that will survive that long, save for blow it up ourselves.</div><div><br /></div><div>And on that bombshell, I have an exam to revise for. I hope I've brightened up your day :)</div><div><br /></div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-90075011481877544022009-06-05T00:21:00.007+10:002009-06-09T17:22:24.168+10:00Control Freak<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.bleedingedgebiotech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/wiimote.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 244px;" src="http://www.bleedingedgebiotech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/wiimote.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><div>It seems that people actually <i>want</i> to wave their arms about and generally make themselves look like an epileptic on steroids.</div><div><br /></div><div>E3 was awash this year with new controllers, as both Microsoft and Sony unveiled new motion-sensor Wiimote-style thingymajigs for their consoles, and to be honest I'm not sure why. I have never understood the reasoning behind this latest gaming craze whereby you can wave your arm to control your character. I see it as nothing more than a novelty to be frank; it severely restricts the depth and range of movements available in the game. Can you imagine trying to free-run in Mirror's Edge using a Wiimote? Or sneak your way through the Middle-East in MGS4? I certainly can't.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, a Wiimote is great if you wish to badly simulate a game of tennis while a few mates are around for drinks and a bag of nuts. The hilarity to be had as you watch your mates fall over and generally make cocks of themselves is almost boundless.</div><div><br /></div><div>But I am sorry, as a serious gaming mechanic, it is about as useful as blunt pencil i.e pointless. When I boot up a game for a quick bout of Resistance or my beloved Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, I do not want to have to find a room where there is nothing for me to hit within at least ten miles. I just want to sit down on my comfy chair with my DualShock3 clutched in my hand, and to unleash pwnage upon any unsuspecting Americans. </div><div><br /></div><div>Why MS and Sony have joined the Wii bandwagon I do not know. They are the two 'professional' consoles. They don't need an endless stream of rubbish Mario and Zelda tie-ins; or to appear cheap because they've skimped on the technology... as evidenced by the general poor quality of the graphics and the crap that passes for a physics engine on these games. Instead, they can make such technically impressive games as MGS4 or Halo 3. Not once during the entire experience of completing COD4 did I wish to jump up and down and wave my arms about.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Wii fulfils its function admirably; provide a low-tech, high-fun alternative to going out with a slew of decent party titles and games for the under-twelves. </div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, for Jack's sake. Looking at the stuff Nintendo announced at E3 compared to those shown by MS and Sony is like comparing an ant to a planet. Wiiers get <i>yet another </i>Mario game, <i>yet another</i> cocking tennis game (but this time you can play as Mario or Yoshi or Princess Peach or >shoots self<) and probably some sort of Zelda update... after all its almost guaranteed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whereas everyone else gets stellar titles such as God of War 3, Metal Gear Solid: Rising, MAG, Assassins Creed 2 and much much more. </div><div><br /></div><div>The only reason the Wii is popular is because it is not a console; it is a toy. Its like saying that Barbie Dolls are better than Airfix models because they sell more. Well... no... they just aren't.</div><div><br /></div><div>MS and Sony have seen that the Wii is popular, and they want in. I get that. I really do. But I don't think it'll do them any good. Normal gamers don't want a Wiimote; its only the people who are casual gamers at best who do. Those who only boot up their console when friends are over. People who want to get fit without leaving their house. And these people would have to buy a Wii. Its cheap, it does everything they want and it has a steady flow of titles to keep them going. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whereas the other two should stick to producing more of the stuff that we normal gamers want...</div><div><br /></div><div>Big explosions, cool guns, fast cars and graphics to make our eyeballs bleed.</div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-26698115560731490072009-05-22T15:10:00.010+10:002009-05-25T22:19:46.093+10:00I Believe That in the Real World, We Call them Criminals...It seems that things have gone a bit tits-up for the UK government in the past week or so; what with the revelation that most MPs have cheated and lied in an effort to squeeze every last penny of taxpayers money they can get their hands on to fund their ridiculous habit of buying an absurd number of houses.<div><br /></div><div>Plainly this is good material. I do not believe that the nation's bloggers will ever run out of hate-filled prose with which to fill their webpages. Nor shall the newspapers ever tire of publishing the expenses of yet another grossly-incompetent MP who decided that he would use public money to buy his ducks a small island in the middle of a moat. It would be unbelievably laughable if it were not so sad. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sad as in 'pathetic'. Not sad as in, 'aww, the MPs have to pay back all the money they've stolen'. </div><div><br /></div><div>And what sweetens the deal is that many of them still protest innocence and feign ignorance. No doubt they adopt the most flabbergasted look that their lying little faces can muster, and garble their words in an attempt to look shocked, hurt and appalled all in one neat little package. "Me!? Steal money!? No, no, no, no..."</div><div><br /></div><div>Bull.</div><div><br /></div><div>Shit.</div><div><br /></div><div>If they hadn't've been caught out in this leak, then they would have continued to abuse the system whereby we give exorbitant amounts of money to the people who do nothing to deserve it. Why should we give them thousands of pounds to renovate their second, third and twenty-fourth homes when we could instead build better hospitals? Why pay for this MP to have his garden weeded when the national parks are being slowly eaten up by the relentless encroachment of industrial estates? </div><div><br /></div><div>If they did not claim surprise, or churn out the standard "Oh I didn't know. I'll resign and then it'll all be over..." line, then I would not feel so angry as an (ex-) British taxpayer. Its their lying, squirming ways that rub salt into the wound. And what about the credit crunch? They tell us to stop buying things and to save our money... and yet they spend massive amounts on things that shouldn't even exist in the first place; honestly, how many houses do you people need!? It is hypocrisy on the highest levels. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is only one solution...</div><div><br /></div><div>They must all be killed. </div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-24109924050787105282009-05-20T14:36:00.011+10:002009-05-23T15:05:34.542+10:00Living Long and Prospering>Minor Spoilers Ahead<<div><br /><div>Okay, I am going to get the obvious stuff out of the way first...</div><div> <div><div>Star Trek is going beyond the final frontier and boldly going where no movie has gone before. Set phasers on fun. It is beaming into a cinema near you. Go and see it at maximum warp. Don't Klingon to your gold-pressed latinum, go and buy a ticket.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I think I've covered all the stereotypes... that should keep the nerds happy.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://roddysrockinreviews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/startrek_gallerylogo1.jpg" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 170px; height: 250px;" border="0" alt="" /><div>For the rest of you who, when asked to think of Star Trek, think of cardboard sets and William Shatner being cosmically incapable of speaking a sentence in one go, I am going to tell you just why you should put aside your prejudices and pop down to your local movie emporium to watch the latest film. I'm not going to give you a plot summary as you can find that on Wikipedia or whatever site Google cares to direct you to.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"This isn't your father's Trek"</span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>This film is Trek for the masses; it is a reboot of the old franchise for a modern audience. It is not made for the fans. </div><div><br /></div><div>Even if you've never seen an episode of the original series and cannot tell the difference between a warp engine and a phaser, this movie won't alienate you (pardon the pun). Of course, as this is Star Trek, its still fantastical and full of treknobabble that will fly over the heads of the general audience; however, crucially, unlike previous films it does not rely on it to tell the story. Luckily, the concept of "warp drive" and "Vulcans" has infiltrated common culture to such a degree that most people will know what is meant anyway. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>And rest assured that the days of cardboard props and hammy acting are long gone. This is bang up to date in regards to special effects, and the actors are of good quality. The opening sequence featuring the destruction of the U.S.S Kelvin is visually breathtaking, and goes way beyond anything that the Star Wars prequels ever managed to pull out of George Lucas' arse. It isn't plastic models held from a string and wobbled about a bit; it is a full-on orgy of fire and phaser, life and death. </div><img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2ijDjZ0d0w/ShVJsJg5k0I/AAAAAAAAAlA/ViTavR1Ftu0/s200/kelvin2wide.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 85px;" border="0" alt="Kelvin under attack" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5338253956134572866" title="OH SHI-" /><div><br /></div><div>Likewise the acting no longer requires the viewer to cringe and roll their eyes. Chris Pine as Captain Kirk pays homage to William Shatner's take on the character, and successfully manages not to fall into parody. Zachary Quinto as Spock also manages to believably become the Vulcan we all know and love, while still adding his own brand of character interpretation into the mix. Our new Spock has several surprises up his sleeve... </div><div><br /></div><div>Personally however, the award must go to the ever-dependable Karl Urban as Dr "Bones" McCoy. He has truly captured the spirit of the original character; one who is often sorely overlooked in the shadow of His Shatness and Leonard Nimoy (Spock). I thought he was fantastic. </div><div><br /></div><div>The rest of the cast were alright enough. I don't know why a lot of people are raving about Simon Pegg as Scotty; he was not particularly memorable and served really only to be the comic relief. John Cho as Sulu was fine, but he wasn't Sulu. Nor was Anton Yelchin a recognisable Chekov; a character who was given a much more major role than the original ever had. Zoe Saldana as Uhura did the token female character justice, but again was prescribed a role (and a major plot revelation) much above what was given to Nichelle Nicols all those years ago. Eric Bana as the villain Nero was generally very good, if slightly underused. Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike was also a great addition, if again underused.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; ">"Starship Whine"</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><img src="http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/11/enterprise579_l.jpg" title="Ryan Church is 9th on my list of people to kill..." style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 379px; height: 146px;" border="0" alt="The New Enterprise" /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Jamie will appreciate that heading I'm sure. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">While the film is very good overall, I do have some things that I do not like. The new U.S.S Enterprise for one... I mean just look at it in the picture above. It is hideous on an epic scale. What is with the gigantified warp nacelles (the big tubes at the back)? What have the neck so far back along the drive section? Compare it to the original from the 1960's, and I am sorry but the 60's one wins every time.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><img src="http://screenrant.com/images/compare-ncc-1701.jpg" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 350px; height: 188px;" border="0" alt="" /><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;">I have campaigned vigorously for the man responsible to be killed. Or at least to have his drawing hand removed from his person so he can never again touch an old classic and ruin it.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Apart from that, there were a few things in the film that made me swallow hard. How can Spock see... erm... actually that's a massive giveaway of the plot if I tell you, so I'll just say that what he sees is impossible. Physically impossible. And for a series that tries to make its treknobabble as grounded in reality as it can, its a bit of a let-down. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"The Best of Both Worlds"</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Again, I am sure that Jamie will be the only one to laugh quietly at that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">To sum up then, the movie is very good. It has action, drama, sci-fi, romance and it reinvigorates the franchise. It is great for fans and newcomers alike. You do not need to know the story, or the characters, or anything like that. You just need to sit back and enjoy the most fun-filled two hours you will have this year.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div></div></div></div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-63924198631169115232009-05-15T16:58:00.002+10:002009-05-15T17:19:04.388+10:00OopsOk sorry to not have been posting for ages... lots of stuff to do :P<div><br /></div><div>I think that the O:EA Part V has been abandoned. I will post what I had already saved to drafts in the coming days, but it doesn't seem likely that anything will be posted "officially" if you see what I mean.</div><div><br /></div><div>I will however post my review of Star Trek after I have re-watched it over the weekend. And this time I won't be distracted by certain other factors; purely watching to enjoy and review. </div><div><br /></div><div>All the best.</div><div><br /></div><div>Chris</div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-57346067780614433652009-04-10T12:18:00.015+10:002009-05-23T17:10:11.529+10:00Windows 7... Rounded up from 666For some unfathomable reason, I decided to visit the Microsoft Windows 7 page to see what it had to offer. I pressed "enter" with a palpable sense of fear and dread; truly I knew that W7 was going to disappoint harder than if the new Star Trek movie was just an hour of William Shatner grinning madly and lolloping about on a big pile of money... >shudder<<div><br /><img src="http://www.businesspundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/bill-gates-1983.jpg" title="If only Steve was here... -sighs-" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 290px; height: 252px;" border="0" alt=""><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">"Give me all of your earnings to help me in my quest to buy a proper bed..."</span><br /></div><div><div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, as you may well have gathered, I am no fan of Microsoft. And while I know that typing the line "Microsoft is crap" when using any MS product means that your name is secretly added to a register of people whom, when the revolution comes, Bill Gates will personally spit on... I have to indeed say that Windows 7 is in no way the change promised to those of us left cold by the bitter taste of Vista.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">The Good...</span></div><div><br /></div><div>So, I shall begin with all the things that I liked about Windows 7 from the handy demonstration videos:</div><div><ol><li>The ability to add icons to a "favourites bar" on the taskbar at the bottom of your screen. This means that you can put all of your most important programs or files just one click away.</li><li>That's it.</li></ol><div>Ok, so now its time to critique what is on offer. I shall start with the thing that I liked, which upon reflection I now don't because I've just realised that all of my favourite programs and files are one click away anyway as they are icons on my desktop. And so the taskbar thingy is of no use whatsoever. At all.</div><div><br /></div><div>So the list of likables now stands at zero. And this is how it shall remain.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">The Bad...</span></div><div><br /></div><div>The things I <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">didn't</span> like about W7 are far more numerous. Essentially it is the entire new user interface. As a shining example, the fact that you can see a "preview" of what windows you have open for a program such as IE8 by clicking on the icon in the taskbar. Great! Surely this is a triumph for ease of use! </div><div><br /></div><div>Well no, not exactly, as it takes the same amount of clicks that simply opening the window and having a look yourself would have required. And then you can get right to work rather than having to click on the preview again to open it. Now yes, maybe if you had twenty seven different tabs open on your browser then it would be handy. Except I don't. And so it isn't. If you can't remember what tabs you have open, like the twat in the demonstration video claims he has an inability to do (primarily because he is an annoying twat), then there is something very wrong with you and you need to get a brain scan to confirm that you are not infact an orange. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">No! I said "King of Browsers" damnit! Now go away! </span></div><div><img src="http://www.smashbros.com/en_uk/characters/images/bowser/bowser.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 184px; height: 158px;" border="0" alt="" /></div><div><br /></div><div>Having briefly mentioned IE8, I'll go with that next. Microsoft seem to believe that Internet Explorer 8 is the King of Browsers, and despite a recent ruling saying that they need to untie future MS products from its evil clutches, IE8 is so integral to going online in W7 that without it the whole Operating System would collapse in a fit of tears, sobbing its little virtual heart out. I fear that anybody who has unchained themselves from Internet Explorer and embraced the loving alternatives of Firefox, or even my beloved Google Chrome, will be sorely let down on features if they made the 'upgrade' to W7. </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">The Ugly...</span></div><div><br /></div><div>What else was shit about it? Erm, well I suppose honourable mention goes to the two people who go through their heavily scripted routine in the demonstration videos. They've gone for a "cocky and thick" partner duo; the cocky one explains how he is having to use psychotropic drugs to stop himself from orgasming over the user interface, while the thick one is so obviously in the pay of Microsoft to literally stand there and say "Oh wow that's great" I am surprised that he hasn't simply stapled the cheque to his forehead. </div><div><br /></div><div>One such display of this was when Twatface showed us how W7 can now be used with touchscreens. Now I am sure that this news will bring joy to all of those people who have had their touchscreens slowly gathering cobwebs in the corner, eagerly awaiting just such an opportunity for them to show their masters how useful and cool they can be.</div><div><br /></div><div>All four of them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Why champion a feature that 99% of people will not, and will probably never <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">be</span> able to use anyway? And its all well and good having a touch-based interface; they just forgot to make it work properly. Apple have managed to create, at least in my hard-won opinion, a fantastically intuitive system with the iPod Touch and iPhone. And so when Cockface began to show you the W7 version of touch-based control, it was like watching a giant leap backwards for mankind.</div><div><br /></div><div>C'mon, Apple have had touchscreen devices for a good two years now, and MS *<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">still* </span>can't get it right. It's laughable. I am actually laughing right now. Hahaha. When it comes down to it, this magical revolution that Twatface is getting all hyper over is actually just that you can use the touch interface to move the cursor. As in simply drag your finger and after an irritating and noticeable lag, the cursor will follow. You tap to click. You swipe your finger left to switch tabs to the left... which is all wrong as this would surely move you <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">right</span> and not left; something that Apple has realised.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not even sure that a PC really needs touchscreen features anyway. What exactly is wrong with a keyboard and mouse? Every single touchscreen PC I have ever used has been rubbish as controlling the cursor with your finger is vastly more difficult and error-prone than simply using a trackpad or mouse. They work much better on portable devices such as phones and music players, and that is where they should remain.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Breaking Windows</span></div><div><br /></div><div>The final nail in the coffin is how you now control your window panes. </div><div><br /></div><div>As is helpfully stated on the website, "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; font-family:'Segoe UI';font-size:12px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(192, 192, 192);">You can drag open windows to screen borders, so you'll no longer have to click on tiny objects in the corner of a window to make it do what you want.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; font-family:Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(192, 192, 192);">".</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(192, 192, 192);"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></div><div>I don't recall this ever being a problem, but now the Windows nerds have provided a solution to something that, despite working just fine for the past two fucking decades, obviously needed to be changed... So now with W7, to maximise, you simply drag the border to the top of the screen and it fills the page. Yay. </div><div><br /></div><div>They've also made it so that when you drag a window to the side of your screen, it changes shape and fills half of the screen. The theory is you do this so that there are two windows on opposite sides of the screen, which makes file transfers easier as they are both on the screen at once. Pretty handy! </div><div><br /></div><div>If you don't know how to use the ctrl+c function that is. Then its just a pain.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Death to the West</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div>I am now utterly convinced the MS is run by a group of evil terrorists who have concocted this diabolical scheme to use Windows to cripple Western businesses by making W7 less easy-to-use than a condom made of air. Half of the features are useless to the average man, and the other half will be ignored as they are totally needless. </div><div><br /></div><div>Therefore, you should stick with the old veteran and workhorse; XP. </div><div><br /></div><div>Its much, much better.</div><div><br /></div></div></div></div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-12141100754572491592009-04-03T23:06:00.006+10:002009-04-04T22:50:42.532+10:00Round the Bend Down Under<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.davidwallphoto.com/images/%7BFDD5259A-9C6F-4F7C-9574-FBACB8C41A2D%7D.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 199px; height: 250px;" src="http://www.davidwallphoto.com/images/%7BFDD5259A-9C6F-4F7C-9574-FBACB8C41A2D%7D.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><div>To begin with I must apologise for the chronic lack of articles as of late. Being a Uni student can sometimes be hard graft, and as is the case with the other Three, I have been bogged down with work and social mishaps.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>So, to get back to my usual hating ways, what I am going to do for today's post is make a bold statement:</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Australians can't drive.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>See, it is actually in bold and everything...</div><div><br /></div><div>I have been on the roads for five months now, and I have yet to find an Australian driver who seems to possess even a modicum of knowledge of the rules of the road; or even just common car courtesy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Undertaking is a mortal sin in England, punishable by a damned good flogging and social rejection; but over here it seems to be a natural <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">occurrence</span>. They think nothing of coming right up your arse, even if you are going twenty ks over the speed limit anyway and then swerving into the inside lane and undertaking you. Just to get one car ahead. It is ridiculous.</div><div><br /></div><div>And yet, oddly, you then inevitably get stuck behind the cock who thinks its a good idea to doggedly occupy the outside lane and go ten <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">klicks</span> under the limit. This forces me to go against all of my hard learned programming and to undertake them. I can even hear my old driving instructor's soft voice saying "I'm disappointed in you" as I drop a cog and pull past. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sorry Steve. Please forgive me.</div><div><br /></div><div>Steve?</div><div><br /></div><div>STEVE!!!</div><div><br /></div><div>Flashbacks aside, I have noticed that I have a totally different, and increasingly more violent vocabulary when I am driving. To me, there are several stages of driving annoyance, each with their own description... The lowest level being, "Idiot". I use this <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">moniker</span> to describe those who refuse point blank to indicate. The next level up is "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Dickface</span>", which is usually brought to bear against those who cut in or undertake. And the final level, the very top of the chain, is the "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Tosspot</span>". I reserve this special level of hatred for those who make me question the sanity of whoever was examining their driving on that fateful day when they got a license.</div><div><br /></div><div>What exactly was going through their tiny, tiny minds when they saw the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Tosspot</span> quite <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">deliberately</span> go 3cm from the back of another car, beep their horn, shout 'til they are blue in the face and then perform a frightening undertaking manoeuvre that would make even Evil <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Knievel</span> think twice. A manoeuvre that is vastly unsuccessful and results in the car in-front having to perform some pretty special braking to avoid a collision.</div><img src="http://www.auto-fair.com.au/XR6_Ute__Orange.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 237px; height: 177px;" border="0" alt="" /><div><br /></div><div>These Pots of Toss invariably are driving a bright orange Ford Falcon Ute, as pictured here....</div><div><br /></div><div>If you see one of these in your general vicinity, then get out of there as fast as you can because they <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">will</span> be driven by Tossers and they <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">will</span> cause a crash. They are pathologically incapable of driving normally and safely. They are under the mistaken impression that by having tinted windows that it somehow makes them important and a cut-above-the-rest.</div><div><br /></div><div>No.</div><div><br /></div><div>It.</div><div><br /></div><div>Fucking.</div><div><br /></div><div>Doesn't.</div><div><br /></div><div>You are scum, and should be banned from the roads. Your license shall be melted in the blast furnace of a nuclear reactor, and then spat on by every single driving examiner in the United Kingdom.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh and for Jack's sake please don't even get me started on the older Asians... </div><div><br /></div><div>Now I must make it plain and clear from the outset, and to quote Yahtzee, "I am not a racist". I hate all ethnic groups with equal passion, and I do not want to be seen to be <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">preferring</span> to pick on one group in particular, or else the others will feel left out. </div><div><br /></div><div>But I feel that honourable mention should go to those <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">individuals</span> of an Asian persuasion who decide that it is a good idea to drive around with a) no insurance, b) no training and c) seemingly blindfolded.</div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, I cannot count the number of times I have had to swerve out of the way because an Asian grandmother has just pulled out from a turning without looking left or right. Indicators are obviously beyond their comprehension, as is that magical device known as a 'mirror'. </div><div><br /></div><div>You get the idea. Only those <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">privileged</span> few of us who were fortunate enough to learn on British roads are able to drive properly; therefore only we should be allowed on the roads.</div><div><br /></div><div>The rest should be shot.</div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-65513527629584754562009-03-17T15:54:00.015+10:002009-03-22T19:39:56.796+10:00The Legendary Legate<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Cardinal_Wolsey_Christ_Church.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 199px; height: 300px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Cardinal_Wolsey_Christ_Church.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><div>Everyone knows King Henry VIII right? The fat, disease-ridden, promiscuous king who had six wives? Well, he is regarded as one of England's greatest Kings; and one of the most controversial as well. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, Henry VIII was not the only "King of England" during his reign... enter Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, the A<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">lter Rex</span>.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">-The Cardinal Himself, in a painting by Samson Strong in 1526</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Alter Rex </span>literally means "other King", and is a title that best describes just how brilliant the Cardinal is. He is without doubt my favourite real-life hero ever, and it is sad that hardly anybody knows who he is.</div><div><br /></div><div>Without him, Britain as we know it; and it could also be argued <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">the world</span>, would not be the same as it is today. He played a vital role in English policy during the 1500's, and, in my opinion, did far more for the country than Henry VIII ever did.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not going to bore you with the complicated details of mediaeval policy and how they all interconnect, despite the fact that it is fascinating, but I will tell you just why Wolsey is the greatest person ever...</div><div><br /></div><div>For starters, he is the archetypal hero. He was born into a peasant family, and was quickly shown to be a quick and talented learner. But most of all, Wolsey had ambition; to be something better than he was. For all manner of complicated reasons, he came into the service of Henry VIII, and became his trusted advisor. How a mere peasant had managed to ascend to such a high position shows just how great Wolsey was. </div><div><br /></div><div>Some argue that he was nothing more than a power-hungry lackey to Henry, often changing his views to keep in Henry's favour. And while this is true to some degree, Wolsey had his own agenda... keeping in Henry's good books allowed him to maneuver himself into such positions of power that he could then do as he wished.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">Sam Neill as Wolsey in the 2007 television programme, "The Tudors"</span></div><img src="http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/87/63/0000038763_20070327162239.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 201px; height: 324px;" border="0" alt="" /><div><br /></div><div>He quickly rose in ranks through the Church, becoming a Cardinal and thus having the highest position of ecclesiastical power in England. He was then appointed Papal <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">legate a latere</span>, which essentially meant that he had all the Pope's powers; ostensibly to do the Pope's bidding abroad. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Along with Wolsey's numerous successful foreign policy ventures, such as winning the French war, the Treaty of London and the Field of the Cloth of Gold; and also his successes in the domestic arena, especially in the justice system where he was seen as a Man of the People due to the fact that he pushed for a fair and un-biased legal system; having the power of Papal Legate arguably made him just as important than Henry himself.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">alter rex</span>.</div><div><br /></div><div>I believe that without Wolsey, England and Henry would not have been as successful as they were; Wolsey was an instrumental figure, and it is an incredible shame that he is hardly remembered anymore. His opponents tried their hardest to see that Wolsey was brought down; they were jealous of his power and influence, and so his most staunch rival, Anne Boleyn, managed to convince Henry to have him killed. Unfortunately, Wolsey died of illness before his execution, and one of the greatest ever politicians and influential figures had died in disgrace.</div><div><br /></div><div>Wolsey had died not because <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">he</span> was too strong, but because the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">King </span>was not strong enough. </div><div><br /></div><div>As such, I think that Henry allowed his love affairs to interfere with the running of the country, and it is my opinion that Anne Boleyn is the biggest bitch to ever have lived. She wished to control Henry for herself, and Wolsey was an obstacle in this. The divorce going on at the time between Henry and Catherine of Aragon was especially troubling for Wolsey, as despite his best efforts he could not secure a legal divorce. Anne Boleyn wanted Henry to marry her as quickly as possible, and Wolsey's inability to get the divorce meant that he was in her way.</div><div><br /></div><div>Had she been more patient, or perhaps not such a horrible, cut-throat, power-hungry, money-grabbing, manipulative bitch then Wolsey may have eventually succeeded...</div><div><br /></div><div>Wolsey was a great man, a great servant of the King and a great force in politics. Without him, the world as it is today would not be the same. And so while Jeremy Clarkson may be brilliant in his own right, even he cannot compete with what Cardinal Wolsey has done for us. </div><div><br /></div><div>He was, is, and always shall be, a legend.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"If I had served my God as diligently as I served my King, He would not have given me over in my grey hairs..."</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-3516269627375935442009-03-13T14:32:00.017+10:002009-03-14T14:05:32.193+10:00Shuffling Off This Mortal Coil"Form over function" seems to be the new phrase fueling Apple designers in their never-ending quest to provide you with a needless update for something that doesn't actually require one. <div><br /></div><div>Hence we have the all-new iPod Shuffle 3rd Generation.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://blog.lib.umn.edu/liblearn/blog/new-ipod-shuffle-lg.png" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 229px; height: 183px;" border="0" alt="" /><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">The old iPod Shuffle G2</span><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>For clarity, I own the previous generation model, and I have done since it was released. It is a great little piece of kit. Cute as a button, and about the same size as one as well. </div><div><br /></div><div>As such, I think that this more than qualifies me to moan about and criticise this new one.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, to business.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Talk to Me</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div>Of course with its tininess, it did have a few drawbacks; chief of which was the lack of a screen. People complained that they didn't know what they were listening to, and that you couldn't see the name of the song or the artist.</div><div><br /></div><div>Personally I never had this problem. I can give you the song name, artist name and album name after listening to the first two or three seconds of any song in my collection or on my iPod. Granted, there are only a hundred and thirty or so on there, but still; how hard can it be to remember the names of the songs you like? It only had one gig of memory, so you'd only have to remember a maximum of two hundred and forty songs anyway.</div><div style="text-align: right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">The new iPod Shuffle G3</span> </div><img src="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/20090311/gallery-big-06.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 230px; height: 300px;" border="0" alt="" /><div>But no; some people are idiots, so the lack of screen needed <br /></div><div>to be addressed in the G3. And what they came up with is a new feature called VoiceOver. </div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What VoiceOver does is that it physically 'speaks' the name of the song that is playing when you press a certain button. Pretty cool in concept; absolutely terrible in practice. If you hear the voice that it speaks with, you can almost hear the crunching of gears and cogs. Make no mistake, it is your stereotypical Stephen Hawking affair and while initially that sounds quite cool, after a few times it just sounds awful. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Here's hoping that some nerd somewhere will create a hack where you can program a different voice; I would personally walk through fire to have a King Leonidas-style voice telling me the song details: "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Madness!? THIS. IS. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">INSOMNIAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!</span></span>", or perhaps even, "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Then we shall fight in the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Slade</span></span>". </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I fondly imagined that VoiceOver would break trying to pronounce "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyLx0qc_gKc&feature=related">Map of the Problematique</a>", but to combat this, Apple have realised that not all music is in English and so you can set song titles to be spoken any one of fourteen languages. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So far, so pointless. Sure, the increase in capacity from one or two gigs to a staggering four gigs (eyes firmly rolled) means that it can handle up to a thousand songs in its memory banks; but who, truly, listens to a thousand songs? I will still only have a hundred and thirty songs whether I can fit a thousand or a million on my iPod, so VoiceOver would irritate me to a level beyond the comprehension of mortal man. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><img src="http://www.mobiles-actus.com/photos/news/apple-ipod-shuffle-3g-1.jpg" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 224px;" border="0" alt="" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; "><br /></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; ">The Curious Case of No Buttons At All</span><br /></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">Control Freak</span><br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div>Another problem which wasn't really a problem but has been corrected anyway --breathes-- were the actual physical controls placed on the G2 Shuffle.<div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div>Obviously, in the weird and twisted collective mind of the Apple design team, this was a heinous crime, and so they have removed the controls from the device itself and placed them instead on the headphone lead. </div><div><br /></div><div>The reason for this is two-fold.</div><div><ol><li>A smaller device looks somehow better and impressive. Even if it means you can put it down and never find it again.</li><li>It forces you to use Apple headphones as they are the only ones with controls. No Apple headphones, no way of listening to your music.</li></ol><div>It is a brilliant ploy; mind you, what else do you expect from Apple? They see an opportunity to take even more money off you, so they take it. If your headphones break then that is an extra $20 or so for you to replace them which goes straight into the Apple coffers; meanwhile you can't control your music and your iPod has about as much use as Senator Stephen Conroy at a freedom of speech seminar.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, Apple points out rather lamely that third-party headphones will soon become available with the controls as well. Look, I'm sorry, but I paid ninety quid for my B&O A8 headphones, and you are telling me that I can't use them in the new iPod Shuffle? Why should I pay yet another exorbitant price for yet another set of headphones for yet another needless iPod? Answer: I shouldn't have to at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>In fairness, the controls are generally quite good although there are a few little niggles. You can click the middle button on the headphone control... thing... to play/ pause, and press the up and down buttons to change the volume. Simple. </div><div><br /></div><div>What isn't so simple is the way to change song; you click the middle button twice to skip a song, and three times to go back one. While not too bad, I think you will eventually wear your fingerprints away from clicking all the way through to the four-hundred and ninety-ninth song in your collection. Especially if you are going backwards. </div><div><br /></div><div>If, for some unfathomable reason, you want to activate VoiceOver, you hold down the button to hear the song details, and hold it down still longer to change Playlists (more on that below).</div><div><br /></div><div>Why even bother with the kerfuffle of having the buttons on your headphone lead anyway when they have previously demonstrated the use of the accelerometer on the Nano G4? Surely the Shuffle is a device <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">made</span> for that "shake-to-skip" feature? Its just a thought, but it would save a lot of hassle having to click trillions of times to go back a few songs.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">More Choice</span></div><div><br /></div><div>One of the best advantages that this latest version of the Shuffle has is the ability to play Playlists. The G2 couldn't do this, and it was a pain. I currently have --checks-- eleven Playlists on iTunes, and the fact that the G2 made you choose only one Playlist meant that whenever you wanted a change in style of music, you had to load up iTunes, plug it in and reload your iPod with the new trcks. Plainly, this is endlessly irritating, and so in the end I settled for putting all of my songs in one Playlist and putting up with going through the bothersome motions of skipping through each song to the ones I wanted.<div><br /></div><div>Thankfully, you can now have multiple Playlists on the Shuffle; which is a move that I am sure will be greeted with cheers from many users. This is perhaps the best upgrade of the whole thing, and for potential buyers, that should be setting off alarm bells.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">And Finally...</span></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, this being Apple, they think that the release of the G3 is the greatest thing bestowed upon humanity in the history of forever, and so their latest sales pitch is just as sickening as usual. View for yourself below...</div><br /><object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HxLcPanwqbM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HxLcPanwqbM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Apart from the fact that it is touted as the first iPod that talks to you ("Kill me now, please. End my suffering."), it has failed to convince me in any way. All it can do that is useful to me is have multiple Playlists, and as I've done without them for the past two years, I don't think it warrants me buying the G3. </div><div><br /></div><div>Chris' conclusion?</div><div><br /></div><div>EPIC FAIL.</div><div><br /></div></div></div></div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-34864738549659473022009-03-06T11:29:00.005+10:002009-03-08T22:23:03.417+10:00The Jack Bauer Power Hour<img src="http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7055/98692576.gif" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 176px; height: 146px;" border="0" alt="" /><div>America has many, many things wrong with it. 304 million things to be exact.<div><br /></div><div>The average American has an IQ which is lower than his waistline measurement and, intelligence-wise, is on par with an orange. </div><div><br /></div><div>Most of them are the same colour as one as well.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now I am not saying that the entire population of America is thicker than a plank of four by two; far from it. Some noble people could even be considered smart; they invented the Space Shuttle and the Atomic Bomb after all. Clearly they are not all stupid.</div><div><br /></div><div>And I must unfortunately accept that I am also in these learned fellows debt for creating what is without doubt the greatest action television show on Earth.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">24.</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>For any of you who haven't seen a series of <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">24</span>, it goes thus:</div><div><br /></div>A terrorist with a regional accent steals/blows up/assassinates something/someone quite important. Jack Bauer is called in. He kills some people. He finds out there is a huge conspiracy. He kills some more people. Then some more. Someone Jack loves is hurt. More killing again. He unleashes verbal pwnery on whoever is in charge. He stops the terrorist plot. He is forced to fake his death/gets captured by China/is put on trial. End of season.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sound good? </div><div><br /></div><div>It is.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">24</span> is told in real-time, meaning that a minute of programming is a minute in the story. Each episode marks an hour of the show, with 24 episodes per season; amounting, for those of you who can't count, to one day. There have been six full seasons (Days 1-6), and the seventh season is currently airing. </div><div><br /></div><div>The show is based around the aforementioned Counter-Terrorist Unit agent Jack Bauer, and his experience of the 'Day'. Now some say that he once won a fistfight against Chuck Norris, without actually using his fists. And it is a proven fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on America since he appeared on television.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2ijDjZ0d0w/SbCWpn1F6bI/AAAAAAAAAjA/RcQmUXARYjc/s200/24-season-6-wallpaper-throng.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5309909602480286130" />All we know is, he is the greatest badass to ever grace our screens. <div><p style="text-align:right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Jack Bauer Himself</span></p><br /></div><div>The first season of <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">24 </span>was introduced with "Today is the longest day of my life." It was a fairly terrible day; the Presidential candidate was targeted in an attempted assassination, Jack's wife and daughter were kidnapped and he was betrayed by his boss, who then went on to kill his wife. This is pretty bad by all accounts, I am sure you'll agree.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thing is... he's had six of these days. And is half-way through a seventh.</div><div><br /></div><div>You can well imagine then that this makes him quite a bitter fellow indeed. He has such strength of character; such integrity to do what needs to be done even when those around him either betray him or are afraid to do what is necessary. </div><div><br /></div><div>Which, usually, means torturing someone. </div><div><br /></div><div>He is incorruptible; he is loyal to his country no matter what they make him do or what they do to him themselves. Even after being left to rot in China by the government, he still fights to save the American people in Day Six. Even after being put on trial for crimes against humanity, he is still protecting the President and the people in Day Seven.</div><div><br /></div><div>He is a one-man army.</div><div><br /></div><div><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2ijDjZ0d0w/SbEaGGhi9ZI/AAAAAAAAAjI/gGPdKPcwVt0/s200/ARGHl_eb99ed5f6954442e985b0ee6fdf09266.jpg" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5310054127779378578" /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">This, however, is definitely not Jack Bauer</span></div><div><br /></div><div>But while Jack can talk the talk, he can walk the walk as well. Some of the action scenes in <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">24</span> are among the best that TV has to offer; a helicopter chase, a rioting jail-break, SWAT storming a building, a terrorist assault on the White House... and these are just the tip of the iceberg.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sure, the various plots can be a tad far-fetched and unbelievable (it just happens that Jack's brother, Graeme, is the man behind a huge conspiracy with the corrupt President), but that is what makes <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">24</span> the epic show that it is.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">24</span> is hyperbole, and y'know, it makes damn good television.</div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, no other programme makes me literally squeal with joy when the main character decides he's tired of talking and instead goes on a one-man rampage against the enemy. And wins.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is epic television taken to the extreme.</div><div><br /></div><div>Don't believe me? Then take a look at this video: </div><div><br /></div><object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cB0VptwTs_U&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cB0VptwTs_U&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object><br /><br /><div>Says it all really...</div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-38020163817116384292009-03-02T07:01:00.016+10:002009-05-28T22:10:41.084+10:00Museical Geniuses<div>I find it incredibly hard to write about music, which is why I was quietly opposed to this latest edition of "Operation: Epic Article". As I said on the main page, all you can really put is "I like this music because it sounds good." This is not very helpful.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am in no way a musician. Indeed, for many years I thought that bass was pronounced to rhyme with the farmyard animal. I had no idea that 'indie' meant 'independent'; I thought it was music from India.</div><div><br /></div><div>And so I apologise if this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. </div><div><br /></div>Now I find most modern day music to be about as entertaining as being stabbed in the face with a blunt stick, repeatedly. It is no more music than it is just an annoying noise. Indeed, I am unable to tell the difference between most bands or singers. Katy Perry, to me, sounds exactly the same as Katy Tunstil. Actually, if I'm truthful, it took me five minutes on Google to come up with that name, as I honestly do not know who she is. <div><br /></div><div>There is a fascinating website called The Official Charts. In it, there is a menagerie of bad grammar and incomprehensible names. At first I thought it was a poor attempt by a German teenager to speak English, but to my horror, it slowly dawned on me that these were the names of the artists in the Top 100 Singles in the UK.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Lady Gaga"? "Tinchy Stryder"? "Ne-Yo"? How about my personal favourite "Lil Wayne"? Who are these people? I have absolutely no idea whatsoever.</div><div><br /></div><div>And who comes up with these ridiculous names? From what I can gather, Lady Gaga is a posh baby, Tinchy is a raving homosexual, Ne-Yo is trying far too hard to be cool and Lil Wayne could quite possibly be the most pathetic and annoying fellow to have ever walked this Earth. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is not just the names that are woefully inept either. You could quite easily cut and paste the lyrics between the songs and nobody would be able to tell the difference. Certainly, those lyrics will be as throwaway as the food containers at McDonalds. "I kissed a girl and I liked it" is about as insightful and deep as a kiddies swimming pool; there is no hidden meaning or philosophical message. It just happens to be that she sucked the face off another girl and that she was quite partial to it. For some unfathomable reason, this is somehow considered to be 'shocking'; lesbianism in music is unheard of it <a href="http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/tatu/tatu_1.jpg">seems</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>What about this abomination?... "You're hot and you're cold, you're yes and you're no". Apart from being physically impossible, this is complete rubbish. Why not just say "you're ambivalent" and be done with the entire song in seconds? Why waste our time with such meaningless drivel?</div><div><br /></div><div>No no no no no. These are not lyrics. These are merely people taking everyday conversation and placing it in what amounts to a synthesiser having a seizure; because that is all the musical part of these songs are. A computer generating a random stream of beeps. Where are the epic drum solos? The riffs of the guitar? </div><div><br /></div><div>Not one of the people mentioned above would be able to play a musical instrument. Not one of their songs even <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">contains </span>a musical instrument.</div><div><br /></div><div>Which is why, without further ado, I present to you: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Muse</span>. </div><div><br /></div><img src="http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimages/bands/m/muse/inland_invasion/281x211.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 281px; height: 211px;" border="0" alt="" /><div><div>As <a href="http://theconfounder.blogspot.com/">The Confounder</a> himself will attest to and nod his head vigorously in favour of, Muse is the greatest band on Earth. Period. You cannot get any better. Why? Well, they actually play music for one. </div><div><br /></div><div>You have not heard drums until you have listened to what Dominic Howard can do with them. </div><div><br /></div><div>Chris Wolstenholme can somehow keep up with Dominic's drumming on the Bass guitar.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Matt Bellamy, apart from being officially the sexiest man in music, redefines what it means to be a musician; having possibly the best voice ever experienced by mankind, immense guitaring ability and the occasional epic classical piano work. </div><div><br /></div><div>All in one song. </div><div><br /></div><div>Live. </div><div><br /></div><div>Don't believe me? Then just watch the live performance of '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LViy46GeMe0">Butterflies and Hurricanes</a>' at Wembley. I would very much like to see Ne-Yo do this. Actually, I'd be surprised if he even knows what a piano is, much less has the ability to play one. </div><div><br /></div><div>Each song sounds different. You cannot mistake the madness of '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZR_UkJV-wE">Hysteria</a>', or the unbridled joy of '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrROiUNwgCM&feature=related">Bliss</a>' for the almost jazzy '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8uwcmDZL0I&feature=related">Time is Running Out</a>', or the thumping bassline of '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv0dCO7Q0m0">Eternally Missed</a>'; whereas there is no discernible difference between most of the songs in the Top 40.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Apart from the fact that they can play instruments, or that they give the best live performances in the world, what really sets Muse apart is the fact that their lyrics and songs actually mean something. Sure, any old twat can pump out a love song. But compare "I kissed a girl and I liked it" to "Oh baby don't you know I suffer, and oh baby can you hear me moan... Oooaaah you set my soul alight." </div><div><br /></div><div>Now which one is more likely to get you laid? "I'm an ugly promiscuous lesbian", or "I am so madly in love with you that my very essence is on fire"? </div><div><br /></div><div>Its like that Marks and Spencer advert; "This isn't just a love song. This is a <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Muse</span> love song." It is just more prestigious and... better. I tell you now, play '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp3_a-PMTw&feature=related">Supermassive Black Hole</a>' with the volume on full and let yourself go. </div><div><br /></div><div>But of course Muse do more than just love songs. I suppose the most popular theme of theirs is the conspiracy theory. How great is that? 50 Cent won't shut up about how he has his bitches and bling, whereas Muse won't shut up about the end of the world. It is just more spectacular in every single way. '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e87_7fIwCI&feature=related">Assassin</a>' urges you to "Shoot your leaders down, join forces underground" and that "...whatever they say, these people are torn, wild and bereft, Assassin is born". How awesome is that? What about '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC-u2yIsawM">Apocalypse Please</a>', where the falsetto tones of Matt Bellamy proclaim "...and its time we saw a miracle, c'mon its time for something biblical".</div><div><br /></div><div>These lyrics actually mean something. '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sBOsh-vyI">Knights of Cydonia</a>', a song with one of the best titles ever thought up (Cydonia is a place on Mars), begins with "Come ride with me through the veins of history, I'll show you a God who falls asleep on the job". Do you get subtle atheist criticism in the works of Lil Wayne? Somehow I don't think so. </div><div><br /></div><div>I doubt very much that Katy Perry could craft such brilliant lyrics; if God exists, then he must be asleep because there is so much death and destruction in our past. This is deep; this is philosophical; this is brilliant.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the best part, the very best, is just how good Muse sounds. Have you ever heard the ending to Knights of Cydonia? Dearie me, it really is the apocalypse in musical form. Epic drum beats, thrumming guitar and a heavy bass. I dare anyone not to wildly headbang when they hear it. Even I, the most introverted man alive, will headbang with the best of them upon hearing that opening sound of horses hooves.</div><div><br /></div><div>Personally, '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UysYqFAC2gk&feature=related">Map of the Problematique</a>' is the best piece of music ever made. No matter how you play it, it always sounds good. The subtle use of piano, the rhythmic cosmic drum beats and the synthesiser work all come together to create the greatest music experience it is possible to attain. And the lyrics are great as well: "And no-one thinks they are to blame; why can't we see that when we bleed, we bleed the same?" </div><div><br /></div><div>It is orgasmically fantastic.</div><div><br /></div><div>As a sample of just how brilliant they are, here are what I consider to be the top five Muse songs, with a link to the song on YouTube. You can hear most of them a lot better by clicking on the post title to be taken to Muse's official website, and then by going to 'media'; or alternatively by using the music player over there on the right.</div><div><div><ol><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UysYqFAC2gk&feature=related">Map of the Problematique</a></li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHUKVoYbdc">Citizen Erased</a></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(85, 26, 139); text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18UWIlIDplI">Space Dementia</a></span></li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sBOsh-vyI">Knights of Cydonia</a></li><li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZR_UkJV-wE">Hysteria</a></li></ol><div>You may not agree with this list, and that's fine. I urge you to listen to as many of their songs as you can and to make up your own mind. </div><div><br /></div><div>Buy their albums or songs off iTunes, and fund further masterpieces. Muse will then use this money to take over the world.</div><div><br /></div><div>And I shall be cheering them on all the way.</div><div><br /></div></div></div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-24365730223029378112009-02-25T13:45:00.005+10:002009-02-26T16:07:04.416+10:00There Seems to be a Theme... Men in Tights...I am now convinced that all American sports require the player to be a homosexual. <div><br /></div><div>Big, hulking, sweaty men pretending to beat the crap out of other big, hulking, sweaty men in a wrestling ring. American 'Foot'ball players having to wear a suit of armour before they even consider going near another player. Baseball players bend over all the time in ridiculously tight trousers. </div><div><br /></div><div>Then you get the monumentally dreadful NASCAR races. They race in a big circle until what seems to be the end of time. Why, pray, can they only turn left? Are they too limp-wristed to turn right? NASCAR serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. </div><div><br /></div><div>It appears then that the Americans are to sport what Iain Lee is to good writing. They are awful on orders of magnitude higher than Hitler could even dream of.</div><div><br /></div><div>Therefore, they must all be killed.</div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-87759087446206708652009-02-24T14:18:00.012+10:002009-02-26T22:51:25.015+10:00"Good Morning Everyone..."<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.channel4.com/sport/cricket/img/presenter_images/Benaud_Richie_128x162.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 128px; height: 162px;" src="http://www.channel4.com/sport/cricket/img/presenter_images/Benaud_Richie_128x162.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Ahh, nothing like the soothing tones of Richie Benaud to get you in the spirit for what is undoubtedly one of the best games on the planet.<div><div><br /></div><div>Yes indeed, for p.d's contribution to what I have now christened "Operation: Epic Article", because it sounds impressive and somehow important, I have decided to write about a sport which, up until a few years back, I thought was a bit... well... boring. As such, I can completely understand why people say that they'd rather eat their own face than watch a game of <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">cricket</span>.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am now converted from my heathenous ways of course, and I hope you will be too by the end. Don't roll your eyes and go to sleep; honestly, give it a try.</div><div><br /></div><div>It has been a great summer of cricket. South Africa and New Zealand have recently completed their tours of Australia, and I have been riveted throughout. You have had more highs and lows than the New York skyline; more drama than an entire season of Coronation Street... and all of this in glorious high definition. I really do love watching a good game of cricket, and I am going to explain why you should too.</div><div><br /></div><div>To begin, flashback to the summer of 2005. England vs Australia. The Ashes. The entire nation was on the edge of their seats as England were poised to win over the Aussies for the first time in well over a decade. All they had to do was keep the Aussies from scoring runs for the last few minutes. Then, victory would be theirs... the rest, as they say, is history.</div><div><br /></div><div>Welcome to the wonderful and thrilling world of international cricket.</div><div><br /></div><div>I should explain. County cricket is about as fun as having your head smashed in with a shovel, over and over again. I do not deny this; and it is this stigma that haunts the game in the eyes of many. But, when the game is played on the international stage, things get a whole lot better.</div><div><br /></div><div>A win actually matters. This isn't some pathetic pub league; this is important. Your nation's pride is resting on your shoulders. You can feel the hope of the crowd surging along your arm as you drive the ball up and out of the ground for a six. Nothing comes close to the tension you feel in your gut as your team has only one ball left, and yet needs a miracle six runs to win. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Its all just too good to describe. Sure, a talentless waste of money such as Wayne "Shrek" Rooney can kick a ball into the goal in the last minute to clinch the World Cup. But all that has really happened is that the keeper was forced to shield his eyes from the intense pie-faced ugliness racing towards him, and thus let the ball in. </div><div><br /></div><img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42525000/jpg/_42525863_bracken416.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 216px; height: 200px;" border="0" alt="" /><div>Cricket, on the other hand, requires actual skill. A subtle nuance in the bowlers stance and pace of his delivery will alert the batsmen to what kind of shot he should play. Should he drive it straight back down the field? Should he hook it and try to go for square leg? Or maybe just tap it away and sacrifice some runs? The batsmen has about 0.4 seconds to see if their mental calculations were right or wrong. If they're right, he can hit the ball for six like he planned. If wrong, then he is going to have to change his tactics in a split second. </div><div><br /></div><div>Compare this to the nancy-boys who prance around a football pitch caring more about their hair than their game. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Cricket is a much deeper, tactical game than most others. You have to choose the right bowler for the right job. The wind affects the flight of the ball. The ground means that the bounce of the ball is variable. And while this may sound boring, it just isn't. You see Dale Steyn of South Africa, or Nathan Bracken of the Aussies somehow manage to throw the ball at a hundred miles an hour, to a spot no bigger than a one pence piece and get it to swing in such a way that a world-class batsman with reaction times that break all known laws of physics is completely confused. That takes skill; that takes class.</div><div><br /></div><div>Your homosexual American use-any-body-part-apart-from-your-Football players have to dress themselves up in what amounts to an armoured condom before they even think about colliding with another homosexual man. </div><div><br /></div><div>The most that could feasibly happen to an actual football player is that his hair-style might get messy. </div><div><br /></div><div>But a cricketer, up until a decade or so ago, faced down a leather ball rocketing towards him so fast that if he blinks he'll miss it, without any form of protection on his head. If he missed his swing and that ball did indeed hit him square in the face, then that was game over for him. Permanently. C'mon, you have to admit, that takes balls of steel. </div><div><br /></div><div>Even today, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">even</span> when they wear a helmet and a 'box' to protect their steel scrotums, a cricket ball smashing into them will almost certainly result in something being broken. Players are injured all the time with broken fingers and toes. What happens? Well the other week a South African player called Mark Boucher broke his finger while playing. Nevertheless, he soldiered on through the pain and managed to get a huge score; enough to almost win the match singe-handedly. Even after he nearly broke his toe as well. </div><div><br /></div><div><div>In contrast to this display of blatant manliness, footballers cry every time there is a momentary brush of contact. They go down clutching their leg as though it might fall off at any minute. This is the point where I shout at the TV and call the useless twig a homosexual, and curse him with words that even 50 Cent would think twice about. <br /></div><div><br /></div></div><img src="http://soccerlens.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/cristiano-ronaldo-entertainer.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 368px;" border="0" alt="" /><div>The really annoying part is, after the ref has lost interest, they get up again and stroll about the pitch with no hint of the fantastic pain they were supposedly in. The worst offender for this is Cristano Ronaldo. </div><div><br /></div><div>Or as I call him, 'Twat'.</div><div><br /></div><div>What a twat he is. What an absolute joke of a sportsman. He has got it into his tiny, tiny mind that he is somehow good looking, and that his ridiculous, gurning, buck-toothed face is the greatest thing a women could ever see. This is why he prances about all the time. The cameras aren't there to record him playing football. No. They are there purely to get his fake-tanned, brilliant chemically-whitened teeth into as many households as possible. It sickens me to death.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>And then, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">and then</span>, he has the downright temerity to fall over sobbing his heart out whenever someone even remotely comes close to him. Fuck off is he hurt. He even smiles cheekily as he gets up. You just know he was acting. And I just know that I would give anything to punch him right in the middle of his irritating face. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anything d'y'hear.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/05wb06qauzfYu/340x.jpg" style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 395px;" border="0" alt="" /><div>With cricket, you don't get that. Everyone is a proper nice chap. During Twenty20 matches, the fantastic commentators, such as my favourite Tony Greig and the aforementioned Richie Benaud, can speak to the team captain at crucial moments of the game (does any other sport do this?), and y'know, even when they are under such intense pressure, they still manage to crack a few jokes and just be a bloke you'd want to go down to the pub with. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I'd rather have my right arm sawn off with a rusty chisel than go to the pub with Twat or Shrek. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm sorry, but international cricket is not a dull sport in any way. It is a fantastic game to watch, especially in the Twenty20 version of the game, where there is so little time to waste that the players just smack it on each shot. The joy you get when they possibly bowl someone out and then scream "HOWZAT!?" at the umpire to see if he agrees is beyond compare. The slow raise of his hand to confirm the wicket... it is an agonising wait but when it comes you are cheering along with the rest of them. </div><div><br /></div><div>You don't get knobheads ruining the game, and watching your nation's captain whack the ball out the ground to win the match gives you more exhilaration than jumping out of a plane. I know; I've done it.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you just want mindless generic tedium, then watch a Crystal Palace vs Blackburn Rovers match. </div><div><br /></div><div>But if you want edge-of-your-seat thrills, skills and spills, then it just has to be cricket.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not golf though. That <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">is</span> shit.</div><div><br /></div></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-76398750782507011212009-02-19T17:03:00.008+10:002009-02-19T18:00:27.522+10:00Road Rage Doesn't Even Cover It...I bloody hate the Brisbane bus drivers who plague the Logan Road. Loathe them with a passion not seen since Mel Gibson directed a film about Sir Jesus H. Christ. Apoplectic is far too low a term to describe the intense maelstrom of hate and anger that I experience upon being caught behind one.<div><br /></div><div>They are the stewards of hell, and the minions of Satan himself; Iain Lee. I bet that he gets them to personally ferry his pasty-white self to and from his latest evil schemes, while he nonchalantly slaughters innocent African children in the back. For fun.</div><div> </div><div>Even Hitler would think twice before allying with them. They are the Creationists of the motoring world.</div><div><br /></div><div>Why, for instance, do they deem it acceptable to stop in the middle of the lane and cause tailbacks measurable in megaparsecs? The stops are on the side of the road, and the roads are designed to be wide enough so that if a bus stops, then a car can just, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">just</span>, squeeze past. But no. That would be too helpful; too kind... a kindness which has no place in their hearts. So they grind to a halt and take up the whole lane with their carcinogenic, foul, multi-coloured death-boxes.</div><div><br /></div><div>And then, when you try to overtake them; have the temerity to actually want to get to your destination before the end of time itself; they pull out right in front of you so that no matter how far along the manoeuvre you were, you will have to do an emergency stop. From 60kph. In the middle of the road. During rush hour.</div><div><br /></div><div>The only notice they give you of your impending doom is a cursory flick of the indicators about a femtosecond before they pull out. So, in return, I give them a cursory flick of my middle finger for a good deal longer after that. </div><div><br /></div><div>And woe betide anyone who is caught when these guys try to turn a corner. The back end swings out like a cricketer on steroids, and any car within a mile or so has to pull some pretty special moves to avoid being hit for six. </div><div><br /></div><div>I feel sorry for the passengers. No doubt they are clinging to the seats, wondering why the council let this drugged-up madman take the wheel. I myself shall be having to use one daily from next week when I start University, and the thing that scares me most is the ten minute bus ride to and from the bus station. Frankly, if I live through the first day, I am fortunate to be alive. I am defying the laws of averages by surviving until next week.</div><div><br /></div><div>So if I suddenly stop writing, you'll know why.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am taking the number 169 bus. Let people know who did it.</div><div><br /></div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-106638333402462222.post-26854022539689348222009-02-18T22:13:00.003+10:002009-02-18T22:16:35.741+10:00PhournomenalJust a quick post to inform you of a few changes.<div><br /></div><div>First, Lee has changed his blog name to 'Surprisingly Bewildered' to, quote, "get his creative juices flowing". Second, we have a new main page for the four blogs in the Phenomenal Four team. Check it out over at http://thephenomenalfour.blogspot.com/ It should have content on it that wouldn't really fit in a normal article; one paragraph posts and the like.</div><div><br /></div><div>Cheers!</div><div><br /></div><div>Chris</div>Chris@p.dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786669717447529378noreply@blogger.com0