Sky News: Parents' Drug And Booze Link To Cot Deaths
Now I remember a few years ago when a cot death (aka 'Sudden Infant Death Syndrome'(SIDS)) meant the parents had put down their baby to sleep for the night in a COT (starting to get the drift here?) usually in a separate bedroom only to go in the morning to find the baby had died. There was a big stink at the time because many parents were being accused of having somehow killed their babies and were trying to cover it up. As if, if they had indeed killed their child, they couldn't think up of a better excuse than -'oh it just died in the night'. A cot death was a cot death because the baby died in a cot - not because the parent had got drunk or drugged up and had rolled over and crushed it in the night, or dropped it off the sofa onto the floor - or whatever... Yet now we've seeing those cases being called cot deaths as well? What is this - is it simply lazy research and/or lazy journalism (I stumbled upon this in Sky News after all) or (puts on tinfoil hat) another one of those 'let's blame the underclass for everything again' schtick so beloved of authoritarian states the world over? The hint being in the article's title - 'Booze and drugs' - middle class people don't 'booze' do they.
[I left a comment saying this - let's see if they bother to put it up there. (I've got a history of leaving comments on moderated places like the BBC and Guardian websites for them to never see the light of day - while seeing responses from the likes of 'Mr Angry from Tumbridge Wells' and from the ALL CAPS brigade get published instead. Funny that.)
Update: There's no sign of the comment.
cuts cuts cuts - snip snip snip - and hair shirts for everyone - so vote for us
Am I missing something?
Seriously. So there's Cameron in his speech banging on about the need for deep, deep cuts in public spending – and before him Clegg was calling for cuts and before him Brown has copped to needing to be making cuts.
Which is all a bit odd – because before the super-sized global economic shit hit the fan – everything was all so very hunky dory – and then all of a sudden Government had to plough in Billions to keep that stinking hulk of various corrupt banks afloat. Isn't this precisely why there's no money left. So how is this now being (oh so conveniently) forgotten? Why is the public being expected to tighten their belts and suffer for the mess the damn bankers and politicians have gotten everyone into? Why aren't bankers being hauled out from their offices and off their golf courses and out from the massage parlours by angry mobs and getting at the least tarred and feathered – and made to pay back all the money they've sapped out of the economy? As it is they've got away with it Scott free. Not only are we being told there absolutely has to be these various cuts but we're being told to vote for it, and to like it as well? Vote for the party that's going to cut the most services and make things a lot harder for everyone. While they're at it – they should get turkeys to vote for Christmas.
The Tories make me puke for saying they've going to force people off incapacity benefits and onto the lower rate Job Seekers Allowance – (which let me tell you, incase you didn't know: IS NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO LIVE ON!) While all the time pretending that somehow millions of jobs are going to magically appear to replace the millions that have been lost in the current ongoing recession.
Labour make me puke for already doing the same thing.
Now that the two parties are now pretty much indistinguishable from each other neither will ever admit to the blindingly plain and simple truth that there's so much unemployment around – because there are (gasp) more people than there are jobs waiting to be filled. If they really want to move a little bit closer to having full employment – how's about reducing the working week to four or even three days – and employ another person to do the other days work that need to be done. Yes – let's bring back that 1960s promise that in the future we'd have so much more leisure time. Of course conservative-minded business people will be throwing their arms up in horror bleating that can't ever hope to afford that? But why ever not? The Government has been very adept at finding astonishingly huge amounts of money to wage war in the Middle East and to bail out the banks... it'd be nice if they could do something that would be beneficial for the whole of the general population for once - rather than slavishly doing whatever big business, large corporations and the banks and financial sector think they should be doing... (because let's face it - all they really want is everyone to be slaves.)
I can't get over how the hell we let them all get away with this. But we do.
Here's someone who's written a better blog post about this sort of thing than me:
Selling the furniture.
Seriously. So there's Cameron in his speech banging on about the need for deep, deep cuts in public spending – and before him Clegg was calling for cuts and before him Brown has copped to needing to be making cuts.
Which is all a bit odd – because before the super-sized global economic shit hit the fan – everything was all so very hunky dory – and then all of a sudden Government had to plough in Billions to keep that stinking hulk of various corrupt banks afloat. Isn't this precisely why there's no money left. So how is this now being (oh so conveniently) forgotten? Why is the public being expected to tighten their belts and suffer for the mess the damn bankers and politicians have gotten everyone into? Why aren't bankers being hauled out from their offices and off their golf courses and out from the massage parlours by angry mobs and getting at the least tarred and feathered – and made to pay back all the money they've sapped out of the economy? As it is they've got away with it Scott free. Not only are we being told there absolutely has to be these various cuts but we're being told to vote for it, and to like it as well? Vote for the party that's going to cut the most services and make things a lot harder for everyone. While they're at it – they should get turkeys to vote for Christmas.
The Tories make me puke for saying they've going to force people off incapacity benefits and onto the lower rate Job Seekers Allowance – (which let me tell you, incase you didn't know: IS NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO LIVE ON!) While all the time pretending that somehow millions of jobs are going to magically appear to replace the millions that have been lost in the current ongoing recession.
Labour make me puke for already doing the same thing.
Now that the two parties are now pretty much indistinguishable from each other neither will ever admit to the blindingly plain and simple truth that there's so much unemployment around – because there are (gasp) more people than there are jobs waiting to be filled. If they really want to move a little bit closer to having full employment – how's about reducing the working week to four or even three days – and employ another person to do the other days work that need to be done. Yes – let's bring back that 1960s promise that in the future we'd have so much more leisure time. Of course conservative-minded business people will be throwing their arms up in horror bleating that can't ever hope to afford that? But why ever not? The Government has been very adept at finding astonishingly huge amounts of money to wage war in the Middle East and to bail out the banks... it'd be nice if they could do something that would be beneficial for the whole of the general population for once - rather than slavishly doing whatever big business, large corporations and the banks and financial sector think they should be doing... (because let's face it - all they really want is everyone to be slaves.)
I can't get over how the hell we let them all get away with this. But we do.
Here's someone who's written a better blog post about this sort of thing than me:
Selling the furniture.
bears shit in the woods, the Pope is a Catholic, water is wet
Get this little gem:
I need to set up my own company - I'll call it 'Bleedin' Obvious' and I'll just print out pretty looking statements that anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would already know and sell them to CEOs of big corporations. I'd be a multi-millionaire in no time.
Most Mac owners getting Windows on the side • The Register
"While Apple owners tend to own more computers and more electronic devices, there is also a high correlation among Apple owners and more affluent consumer households," NDP's vice-president of industry analysis Stephen Baker said.That's because with the 'Steve Jobs tax' - they'd have to be. Duh.
I need to set up my own company - I'll call it 'Bleedin' Obvious' and I'll just print out pretty looking statements that anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would already know and sell them to CEOs of big corporations. I'd be a multi-millionaire in no time.
Most Mac owners getting Windows on the side • The Register
Call for research into pesticides blamed for vanishing bees - Telegraph
Let's re-read this article and re-order it...
Ending sentence:
Mind you, not that it would matter if there was any research - our Govt. has a history of ignoring anything it doesn't happen to agree with. Wouldn't surprise me if they're just sat around thinking - 'oh it's just bees - who cares about a bunch of nasty insects? We've got an election to fight and we need to keep on to our expenses claims -dammit.'
Call for research into pesticides blamed for vanishing bees - Telegraph
Ending sentence:
"The Government says there is no evidence of an unacceptable risk to bees from the neonicotinoids."but:
"Paul Monaghan, head of Social Goals at the retailer, said none of the £10 million set aside by the Government for bee health is going towards research into pesticides."Which I guess means the Government isn't exactly lying - because strictly speaking there isn't any evidence - but that'll be because it hasn't bothered looking for any.
Mind you, not that it would matter if there was any research - our Govt. has a history of ignoring anything it doesn't happen to agree with. Wouldn't surprise me if they're just sat around thinking - 'oh it's just bees - who cares about a bunch of nasty insects? We've got an election to fight and we need to keep on to our expenses claims -dammit.'
Call for research into pesticides blamed for vanishing bees - Telegraph
Polaroid Last picture show
Polaroid Last picture show - Telegraph: "There may be hope yet for Polaroid lovers. The Impossible Project (the-impossible-project.com), formed by a group of European Polaroid enthusiasts and ex-employees, has leased a former factory in Holland, and aims to restart the production of Polaroid film later this year. They are planning to produce one million films in 2010, bringing the Polaroid magic back to life."
Oh Yahoo! How I hate you – let me count the ways...
I remember back when you were young – you were just a humble directory of links, an large assortment of bookmarks – something like a Yellow Pages of the web. But for anyone to be in the directory they had to submit their URL to you via an online form and it had to be checked out by you before finally being added.
That was very tedious way to go about things and it sucked.
Yahoo! mail
Then later on - you did your own version of web based mail (it was at a time when everyone and their dog was providing their own versions of hotmail - they all jumped on the bandwagon seeing it as a revenue stream or eyeball sticky for adverts or something) and like all web based mail at that time – it sucked. You gave out such a mean paltry amount of space – so if a you as a user got a lot of spam (and web based mail addresses are a magnet for spam) or any mail with image attachments – one had to regularly check your mail online (in the days of dial up that was a pain) and keep constantly deleting things or very quickly would be 'over quota' and any new messages wouldn't be received. So going away for weekends or holidays without internet access – made it totally impracticable for mail. Even so it took Yahoo mail a long time to introduce spam filters – and then a bit longer after that to realise that that spam shouldn't still be counted towards the allowed quota. Then it took a longer time after that (and competition from Gmail's far, far more generous mailbox size) to up the allowance. But it came too little – too late guys. There's something to said for being innovators – rather than just imitators – and if you're going to be copyists then at least try to do something to improve and add value to what you're copying to make it attractive... OK? Like the way Google often manage to.
As it was I ended up using my yahoo mail as mainly a disposable catch-all for software and hardware 'registration' purposes – you know, where you need to collect some activation code or whatever – and thereafter the company takes it upon themselves to flood you endlessly with 'special offers' and 'upgrade now offers' – I allow that sort of mail to languish in my mailbox unread before I get around to deleting it still unread. Oh, and while I'm on the subject last year or the year before yahoo upgraded their mail UI. I tried it. It ran so slowly - all because it seemed far more concerned in updating the page just to show an endless rotation of damn banner ads that I had no interest whatsoever in (and most were adblocked anyway)– that it made reading and sorting mail so near totally unusable that I reverted back to it's old style pretty sharpish. That said, I haven't looked at my account for months and months now – it being a home for the aforementioned registration spam, and newsletters I signed up for and can't be bothered to read – oh, and a few dead inactive yahoo groups and spam – lots and lots and lots of spam. Because yahoo's spam filters are still pretty damn useless. So not a very good web-mail experience there then.
Yahoo – the search engine.
At some point rather than just a directory of links - you decided to try and be a web search engine. But your results always sucked. And with your home pages so chock full of links and lists and icons and clutter. Without realising it – you became a great advert for the young minimalist clutter-free, fast and useful results providing Google. Whoooops. It's taken you a long while to admit to that suckiness though. Nowadays you're letting Microsoft's new 'Bing' do the work for you aren't you? (Microsoft – mmmm, now there's another company that got where it has through either copying or buying up other companies innovations.)
Geocities.
I remember the original Geocities. They were great – a place where any amateur could knock together a homepage of their very own for free. Well – except for having to put up with a fairly small banner advert at the top. So great an idea – that you bought the company. So great that you went further and decided to lay a copyright claim to everyone's creator-generated content and then you really went to town with the adverts – great big pop-ups, ads running across the top, down the sides – and oh – surprise, surprise it only served to drive people away. Whoooops. Geocities is dead now. Which is a shame.
eGroups – Yahoo Groups.
Then there was eGroups – another great little company – you already had Yahoo Groups – but they wasn't nearly as good. So people kept using eGroups – it had much better features like embedded thumbnails of pictures in the mail – so a user didn't have to download a whole picture if they didn't want it – and nothing was deleted, everything was properly archived on the web – so anyone could go away for a while and still be able to catch up later. You bought the company and then rather than keep all the features that was good about them you systematically stripped them away. eGroups was effectively turned into Yahoo Groups – but you already had that – so why then...? oh wait – of course, maybe you couldn't stand the competition. Furthermore, two of the things that came to be a big bugbear for me was – picture attachments where no longer stored online within the groups message archives – to get pictures you had (and still have) to have messages delivered to an email address – on a busy group that could be dozens a day – you couldn't pick and choose from thumbnails what you wanted to see any more – it was all or nothing. Then you plastered MASSIVE (and totally) inane banner adverts within all of those individual emails. [I'm still haunted by the memory of having seen hundreds of yahoo dating site adverts – *vomit* yahoo dating - where did that come from?) It was really just a legit form of spam. Of course this meant you couldn't really use a yahoo mail account for yahoo groups – especially not with all the bloated spammy adverts and or with any picture attachments – you'd easily run over your allotted meagre quota within a day or two... so you'd have to have a proper email account somewhere – which meant – oh yes – you didn't really need that yahoo mail account... whooops! No one thought it through did they? "Using yahoo groups alongside yahoo mail - why, whoever would have thought of such a thing ever happening? It's not as if they're from the same company or anything. -Oh wait..."
Yahoo ID
Which is – I'm guessing – around the time the invention of the annoying YahooID thingy came to be – we know it's there primarily to keep track of everyone and what they look at on the interwebs – all mainly so Yahoo can sell all that eyeball and mouse-click info on to third parties. That's just tacky and altogether a bit too Big Brother-ish for my liking. Hiding an opt-out clause deep within pages of lawyer-speak doesn't endear me to you either.
I've been lucky not to forget my yahooID and password because apparently the procedure to try and get so much as a password reminder is a nightmare of labyrinthine legalese-ridden form filling. Which brings me onto another big sucky thing about yahoo – it is deeply steeped in legalese which it often uses as a shield to hide behind. Whenever a person has a genuine grievance they have to go through weeks if not months of on-line form filling only to be ignored for a while longer before they get a response – if they get a response. I don't know if humans even work in that part of Yahoo. I suspect it's just servers packed with programs that spout random legal jargon - specifically designed to fob humans off.
Yahoo the home page and web portal.
Over the years the Yahoo corporation has grown and grown (or is that -groan and groan?) – and that front page got ever more and more and more things plastered over it – yahoo does so much now (well, you either copy -badly, things far better done elsewhere, or else buy up other web companies – and trash them). It's painfully obvious that you've long been trying to be something like AOL – a walled garden – a complete one-stop shop for everyone's internet needs... all to draw in the less savvy newbie internet user (like AOL used to (or still does as far as I know)) But what it means in reality is that you've spread itself out so thinly and become very much a Jack-of-all-trades but master of none.
Because that front pages hs always been so cluttered and so jam packed full of stuff and with your insistence on drawing lots and lots of boxes and having lines around -everything the whole mess is reminiscent of one of those free weekly local newsheets that get pushed through people's doors only to be tossed – unread - straight into the recycling bin.
Here's some free market research for your information Yahoo: When I want to read news – I go straight to a newspaper website, when I want to know train times – I go straight to a train timetable site, when I want to search for something I use the google search bar - or the clean minimalist google page - see the pattern emerging here? When I want something specific I never go to a page where there's hundreds of little bits and bobs of every and anything else amid loads of advertising – in fact I go out of my way to avoid advertising. I have no use for it. Most people don't.
Bizarrely you've now tried to address this 'too much' stuff problem on the newly redesigned homepage – but adding in these roll-out pop-out mini-pages... what that really means is that for an unsuspecting new reader hovering over almost any part of the page it results in a giant sudden pop out mini-page covering up everything else. Urgh. Worst is the new nagging pop up boxes urging you to 'personalize' your homepage with – stuff. Stuff from yahoo, and now extra stuff is available from all manner of other places. Much like you've be able to with iGoogle for years now – (which is another page I already don't bother myself with either). So since I already don't feel the need to have a all-in-one homepage portal – all this being constantly nagged and reminded to have one – I'm finding more than a bit of an intrusion. But yahoo has always had a long love of having those pop ups that cover up a whole page – indeed you used to have massive animated flash adverts that did that (I don't know if they still do – I could never find the 'close x' fast enough - and I've been using adblock for firefox for so long now). But it's a sad fact of life that many advertisers have managed to confuse 'being in-your-face-and-irritating' with 'attention-getting' that they haven't yet twigged that all this might engender a counter-productive and deeply ingrained hostility to the very brands they're supposedly promoting.
Indeed very much like how you've taken it upon yourselves to uglify the Flickr logo with a tacky new 'from Yahoo' addition. Tampering with flickr in any way is always, always an unwise move (they have forums you know, it's a community based website - not just a place for people to store and how off their photos) - but there you go - Yahoo, you obviously just can't help yourself.
Apparently we're soon to be subjected to a whole new marketing campaign from Yahoo! and see a whole new 'radical' make-over. I mean I can't help thinking some of that $100 million might have been better spent on making any number of Yahoo services a lot less sucky, and that Yahoo! becoming a shade more graceful and a whole lot less in-your-face might do them more good. But it looks like that is most definitely not on the cards... Instead I'm guessing we're gonna get bombarded with the usual stock images of shiny happy people with dumb slogans telling us how they are so euphorically, dementedly blissed out simply because they use Yahoo for some aspect of their internet usage.
Gah.
That was very tedious way to go about things and it sucked.
Yahoo! mail
Then later on - you did your own version of web based mail (it was at a time when everyone and their dog was providing their own versions of hotmail - they all jumped on the bandwagon seeing it as a revenue stream or eyeball sticky for adverts or something) and like all web based mail at that time – it sucked. You gave out such a mean paltry amount of space – so if a you as a user got a lot of spam (and web based mail addresses are a magnet for spam) or any mail with image attachments – one had to regularly check your mail online (in the days of dial up that was a pain) and keep constantly deleting things or very quickly would be 'over quota' and any new messages wouldn't be received. So going away for weekends or holidays without internet access – made it totally impracticable for mail. Even so it took Yahoo mail a long time to introduce spam filters – and then a bit longer after that to realise that that spam shouldn't still be counted towards the allowed quota. Then it took a longer time after that (and competition from Gmail's far, far more generous mailbox size) to up the allowance. But it came too little – too late guys. There's something to said for being innovators – rather than just imitators – and if you're going to be copyists then at least try to do something to improve and add value to what you're copying to make it attractive... OK? Like the way Google often manage to.
As it was I ended up using my yahoo mail as mainly a disposable catch-all for software and hardware 'registration' purposes – you know, where you need to collect some activation code or whatever – and thereafter the company takes it upon themselves to flood you endlessly with 'special offers' and 'upgrade now offers' – I allow that sort of mail to languish in my mailbox unread before I get around to deleting it still unread. Oh, and while I'm on the subject last year or the year before yahoo upgraded their mail UI. I tried it. It ran so slowly - all because it seemed far more concerned in updating the page just to show an endless rotation of damn banner ads that I had no interest whatsoever in (and most were adblocked anyway)– that it made reading and sorting mail so near totally unusable that I reverted back to it's old style pretty sharpish. That said, I haven't looked at my account for months and months now – it being a home for the aforementioned registration spam, and newsletters I signed up for and can't be bothered to read – oh, and a few dead inactive yahoo groups and spam – lots and lots and lots of spam. Because yahoo's spam filters are still pretty damn useless. So not a very good web-mail experience there then.
Yahoo – the search engine.
At some point rather than just a directory of links - you decided to try and be a web search engine. But your results always sucked. And with your home pages so chock full of links and lists and icons and clutter. Without realising it – you became a great advert for the young minimalist clutter-free, fast and useful results providing Google. Whoooops. It's taken you a long while to admit to that suckiness though. Nowadays you're letting Microsoft's new 'Bing' do the work for you aren't you? (Microsoft – mmmm, now there's another company that got where it has through either copying or buying up other companies innovations.)
Geocities.
I remember the original Geocities. They were great – a place where any amateur could knock together a homepage of their very own for free. Well – except for having to put up with a fairly small banner advert at the top. So great an idea – that you bought the company. So great that you went further and decided to lay a copyright claim to everyone's creator-generated content and then you really went to town with the adverts – great big pop-ups, ads running across the top, down the sides – and oh – surprise, surprise it only served to drive people away. Whoooops. Geocities is dead now. Which is a shame.
eGroups – Yahoo Groups.
Then there was eGroups – another great little company – you already had Yahoo Groups – but they wasn't nearly as good. So people kept using eGroups – it had much better features like embedded thumbnails of pictures in the mail – so a user didn't have to download a whole picture if they didn't want it – and nothing was deleted, everything was properly archived on the web – so anyone could go away for a while and still be able to catch up later. You bought the company and then rather than keep all the features that was good about them you systematically stripped them away. eGroups was effectively turned into Yahoo Groups – but you already had that – so why then...? oh wait – of course, maybe you couldn't stand the competition. Furthermore, two of the things that came to be a big bugbear for me was – picture attachments where no longer stored online within the groups message archives – to get pictures you had (and still have) to have messages delivered to an email address – on a busy group that could be dozens a day – you couldn't pick and choose from thumbnails what you wanted to see any more – it was all or nothing. Then you plastered MASSIVE (and totally) inane banner adverts within all of those individual emails. [I'm still haunted by the memory of having seen hundreds of yahoo dating site adverts – *vomit* yahoo dating - where did that come from?) It was really just a legit form of spam. Of course this meant you couldn't really use a yahoo mail account for yahoo groups – especially not with all the bloated spammy adverts and or with any picture attachments – you'd easily run over your allotted meagre quota within a day or two... so you'd have to have a proper email account somewhere – which meant – oh yes – you didn't really need that yahoo mail account... whooops! No one thought it through did they? "Using yahoo groups alongside yahoo mail - why, whoever would have thought of such a thing ever happening? It's not as if they're from the same company or anything. -Oh wait..."
Yahoo ID
Which is – I'm guessing – around the time the invention of the annoying YahooID thingy came to be – we know it's there primarily to keep track of everyone and what they look at on the interwebs – all mainly so Yahoo can sell all that eyeball and mouse-click info on to third parties. That's just tacky and altogether a bit too Big Brother-ish for my liking. Hiding an opt-out clause deep within pages of lawyer-speak doesn't endear me to you either.
I've been lucky not to forget my yahooID and password because apparently the procedure to try and get so much as a password reminder is a nightmare of labyrinthine legalese-ridden form filling. Which brings me onto another big sucky thing about yahoo – it is deeply steeped in legalese which it often uses as a shield to hide behind. Whenever a person has a genuine grievance they have to go through weeks if not months of on-line form filling only to be ignored for a while longer before they get a response – if they get a response. I don't know if humans even work in that part of Yahoo. I suspect it's just servers packed with programs that spout random legal jargon - specifically designed to fob humans off.
Yahoo the home page and web portal.
Over the years the Yahoo corporation has grown and grown (or is that -groan and groan?) – and that front page got ever more and more and more things plastered over it – yahoo does so much now (well, you either copy -badly, things far better done elsewhere, or else buy up other web companies – and trash them). It's painfully obvious that you've long been trying to be something like AOL – a walled garden – a complete one-stop shop for everyone's internet needs... all to draw in the less savvy newbie internet user (like AOL used to (or still does as far as I know)) But what it means in reality is that you've spread itself out so thinly and become very much a Jack-of-all-trades but master of none.
Because that front pages hs always been so cluttered and so jam packed full of stuff and with your insistence on drawing lots and lots of boxes and having lines around -everything the whole mess is reminiscent of one of those free weekly local newsheets that get pushed through people's doors only to be tossed – unread - straight into the recycling bin.
Here's some free market research for your information Yahoo: When I want to read news – I go straight to a newspaper website, when I want to know train times – I go straight to a train timetable site, when I want to search for something I use the google search bar - or the clean minimalist google page - see the pattern emerging here? When I want something specific I never go to a page where there's hundreds of little bits and bobs of every and anything else amid loads of advertising – in fact I go out of my way to avoid advertising. I have no use for it. Most people don't.
Bizarrely you've now tried to address this 'too much' stuff problem on the newly redesigned homepage – but adding in these roll-out pop-out mini-pages... what that really means is that for an unsuspecting new reader hovering over almost any part of the page it results in a giant sudden pop out mini-page covering up everything else. Urgh. Worst is the new nagging pop up boxes urging you to 'personalize' your homepage with – stuff. Stuff from yahoo, and now extra stuff is available from all manner of other places. Much like you've be able to with iGoogle for years now – (which is another page I already don't bother myself with either). So since I already don't feel the need to have a all-in-one homepage portal – all this being constantly nagged and reminded to have one – I'm finding more than a bit of an intrusion. But yahoo has always had a long love of having those pop ups that cover up a whole page – indeed you used to have massive animated flash adverts that did that (I don't know if they still do – I could never find the 'close x' fast enough - and I've been using adblock for firefox for so long now). But it's a sad fact of life that many advertisers have managed to confuse 'being in-your-face-and-irritating' with 'attention-getting' that they haven't yet twigged that all this might engender a counter-productive and deeply ingrained hostility to the very brands they're supposedly promoting.
Indeed very much like how you've taken it upon yourselves to uglify the Flickr logo with a tacky new 'from Yahoo' addition. Tampering with flickr in any way is always, always an unwise move (they have forums you know, it's a community based website - not just a place for people to store and how off their photos) - but there you go - Yahoo, you obviously just can't help yourself.
Apparently we're soon to be subjected to a whole new marketing campaign from Yahoo! and see a whole new 'radical' make-over. I mean I can't help thinking some of that $100 million might have been better spent on making any number of Yahoo services a lot less sucky, and that Yahoo! becoming a shade more graceful and a whole lot less in-your-face might do them more good. But it looks like that is most definitely not on the cards... Instead I'm guessing we're gonna get bombarded with the usual stock images of shiny happy people with dumb slogans telling us how they are so euphorically, dementedly blissed out simply because they use Yahoo for some aspect of their internet usage.
Gah.
Doubts over DNA profile timing
The government also recommended the DNA profiles of children aged 10 and over, arrested or convicted of a minor offence, should be deleted by their 18th birthday.
But Professor Laycock said this went against established criminological findings - which show offending peaks at the age of 17 or 18 and remains high until the mid-20s.
Isn't this rewriting the law from 'innocent until proven guilty' to be "'perpetually presumed potentially guilty until proven innocent' - and even after that only to be thereafter perpetually presumed potentially guilty again".
BBC NEWS | UK | Doubts over DNA profile timing
digital copywrongs
Poor Lily Rose Allen - after trying to stand up for -what would you call them - starter artistes? baby bands? from having their livelihoods taken away from them before they start their careers through all that evil wicked bad internet file sharing malarkey... she's found herself unable to cope with the endless abuse and has now shut up shop... she might never record again (like that would be a bad thing?)
Meanwhile things in the totally legit world of music downloading aren't so rosy either with Eminem taking Universal to court over issues over royalties and iTunes/Apple.
Which just proves the whole issue is a lot more complicated then Lilley and Peter Mandelson would have us believe.
Certainly what is wrong here is the proposal to force all ISPs to essentially wiretap all of their customers in case one of them shares something.
Meanwhile things in the totally legit world of music downloading aren't so rosy either with Eminem taking Universal to court over issues over royalties and iTunes/Apple.
Which just proves the whole issue is a lot more complicated then Lilley and Peter Mandelson would have us believe.
Certainly what is wrong here is the proposal to force all ISPs to essentially wiretap all of their customers in case one of them shares something.
tacky branding
Yahoo to kick off new branding campaign.
Yahoo shares fell 14 cents at $16.90 in late-afternoon trading on Nasdaq.
Mmmmm - wonder why that might be? Wouldn't be in part down to yahoo's usual infamous cluelessness would it?
Yahoo shares fell 14 cents at $16.90 in late-afternoon trading on Nasdaq.
Mmmmm - wonder why that might be? Wouldn't be in part down to yahoo's usual infamous cluelessness would it?
Just a random thought ...
Aside from the whole dodginess behind this issue:
Attorney-General sacks housekeeper alleged to be illegal immigrant
Downing Street backs attorney general who hired and fired illegal Tongan maid.
(and this all seems to be yet another case were the Government has rushed through another piece of hastily and ill thought-out knee-jerk legislation and as ever - it's come back to haunt them.)
Just exactly when did it become so de rigueur that the middle class in this country have to have a foreign national working for them - as a house keeper or cleaner or whatever. It really does seem to be quite the little fashion item now, and somehow a British cleaner doesn't have the right cachet.
Why would that be do you think? That they might be happier having someone working for them that can't quite grasp 100% - the English language so they can't go around reading their mail perhaps? Or is it that they're good for working just that little bit under the level of minimum wage, and either would never dare (or even know how) to make a complaint?
I don't know - but it all seems a bit creepy to me.
Attorney-General sacks housekeeper alleged to be illegal immigrant
Downing Street backs attorney general who hired and fired illegal Tongan maid.
(and this all seems to be yet another case were the Government has rushed through another piece of hastily and ill thought-out knee-jerk legislation and as ever - it's come back to haunt them.)
Just exactly when did it become so de rigueur that the middle class in this country have to have a foreign national working for them - as a house keeper or cleaner or whatever. It really does seem to be quite the little fashion item now, and somehow a British cleaner doesn't have the right cachet.
Why would that be do you think? That they might be happier having someone working for them that can't quite grasp 100% - the English language so they can't go around reading their mail perhaps? Or is it that they're good for working just that little bit under the level of minimum wage, and either would never dare (or even know how) to make a complaint?
I don't know - but it all seems a bit creepy to me.
Video adverts launched in the US
Is it just me - or does this seem like a complete waste of what could be good technology?
All that to just advertise - crap.
BBC NEWS | Technology | Video adverts launched in the US
All that to just advertise - crap.
BBC NEWS | Technology | Video adverts launched in the US
some poll somewhere sez 70% 'back rail renationalisation'
No shit Sherlock. You mean the penny has finally dropped that the whole privatisation of Rail was a massively bad idea?
D'ur.
BBC NEWS | UK | 70% 'back rail renationalisation'
D'ur.
BBC NEWS | UK | 70% 'back rail renationalisation'
link dumping
An interview with Banksy.
Scientists uncover new ocean threat from plastics.
This sort of thing frightens me to death. I love plastic. No, I really do - but what the hell is wrong with the human race that it has no respect for it and almost zero desire to keep re-using/recycling it? How is it have we developed this whole-scale use-once and throw-away mentality? Apart from the whole 'yay! plastics are really cheap' thing - because that's pretty much over now - no, it really is. Now we're finding out they're poisoning us - and the environment. Oh dear.
Mmmm Zombies - and Noel Fielding is their King.
Murdoch Jr vs the man from Auntie: Sparks fly over BBC online.
What? A giant international media conglomerate - consisting of very many TV channels, and a great many newspapers (much of which tell the none-too-bright how to vote in elections - and as a consequence Governments (of either leaning) are in constant fear of) are trying to make the UK go 'oh boo-hoo, boo-hoo, poor, poor little Sky TV and most of the press - they're losing out to that big bad BBC - and it's shameful monopoly on balanced, non-biased, intelligent news reporting... That's just not fair is it?
Rebuff: Mark Thompson calls James Murdoch 'desperately out of touch'. Well, that's about right.
Popcorn is good for you, say scientists.
Scientists uncover new ocean threat from plastics.
This sort of thing frightens me to death. I love plastic. No, I really do - but what the hell is wrong with the human race that it has no respect for it and almost zero desire to keep re-using/recycling it? How is it have we developed this whole-scale use-once and throw-away mentality? Apart from the whole 'yay! plastics are really cheap' thing - because that's pretty much over now - no, it really is. Now we're finding out they're poisoning us - and the environment. Oh dear.
Mmmm Zombies - and Noel Fielding is their King.
Murdoch Jr vs the man from Auntie: Sparks fly over BBC online.
What? A giant international media conglomerate - consisting of very many TV channels, and a great many newspapers (much of which tell the none-too-bright how to vote in elections - and as a consequence Governments (of either leaning) are in constant fear of) are trying to make the UK go 'oh boo-hoo, boo-hoo, poor, poor little Sky TV and most of the press - they're losing out to that big bad BBC - and it's shameful monopoly on balanced, non-biased, intelligent news reporting... That's just not fair is it?
Rebuff: Mark Thompson calls James Murdoch 'desperately out of touch'. Well, that's about right.
Popcorn is good for you, say scientists.
Banksy is ruined by mistake
Mistake? Sounds like a case of bloody-minded incompetence to me.Blur Banksy is ruined by mistake.
Richard Curtis to write episode of Doctor Who
Curtis, whose film credits include Notting Hill, Love, Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral, and whose TV credits include Blackadder, the Vicar of Dibley, and Mr Bean.
"There will be a monster. And a famous historical figure will battle the monster."
- by odd coincidence Steven Moffat wrote a Doctor Who spoof 'the curse of fatal death' for 'Comic Relief' wherein Blackadder/Mr Bean actor Rowan Atkinson played the Doctor (and by even thinner coincidence the Vicar of Dibley's Dawn French's hubby - Lenny Henry also played a spoof Doctor for one of his shows... (and even Dawn French herself has done a Doctor Who spoof - and she played opposite Catherine (Donna) Tate in the comedy series 'Wild West'.)
So there.
Richard Curtis to write episode of Doctor Who
"There will be a monster. And a famous historical figure will battle the monster."
- by odd coincidence Steven Moffat wrote a Doctor Who spoof 'the curse of fatal death' for 'Comic Relief' wherein Blackadder/Mr Bean actor Rowan Atkinson played the Doctor (and by even thinner coincidence the Vicar of Dibley's Dawn French's hubby - Lenny Henry also played a spoof Doctor for one of his shows... (and even Dawn French herself has done a Doctor Who spoof - and she played opposite Catherine (Donna) Tate in the comedy series 'Wild West'.)
So there.
Richard Curtis to write episode of Doctor Who
Peter Mandelson speaks out...
Taking something for nothing is wrong . . .
. . . that’s why we must stop illegal file sharing and give the creative industries a breathing space.
This is Peter Mandel's article - with annotations in brackets by me:
It was said this week by a former colleague of mine (anonymously, of course) [well of course - because you're such a well known dick and so viciously pettily vindictive and will make their life very difficult] that I do not “get the internet”. While I am still something of a novice when it comes to streaming and downloads, I have been around long enough to know that piracy is wrong. That is why my department [IE - Mandelson alone] decided to consider strengthening proposals to tackle illegal file sharing and downloading.
[piracy is wrong is it? Hmmmm. Always? Hmmmmm. well, ok, how ignorant can you get? Anyone remember Radio Caroline? It was pirate Radio that led to the BBC to finally and even then rather reluctantly get in step with the rest of the groovy 1960s world and introduce Radio One - to gain a whole audience of young people, an audience that it had hitherto been totally ignoring. Later - with the advent of home compact cassette recording devices where 'home taping was [supposedly] killing music' - yet, strangely enough the industry - rather than collapsing - actually thrived. Otherwise how would it have the vast resources it currently has to persecute individuals through the courts or to lobby easily swayed politicians? *cough*]
The thinking behind this is clear and has nothing to do with dinners in Corfu. [Yeah right. We believe you. *cough*.] The Government [is it now? So you're the Government now are you?] decided to reopen the issue of suspending internet connections as a sanction of last resort against the most egregious offenders for two simple reasons.
First, taking something for nothing, without permission, and with no compensation for the person who created and owns it, is wrong. [Would you like to explain that principle to the record companies you're supporting? For example a certain Mr Morrissey has asked fans NOT to buy a compilation of his early works because HE IS NOT BEING PAID OR COMPENSATED FOR IT! Not only that - can we apply this principle to the 'free' holidays and meals and various other perks you've (and many other MPs have) been enjoying at the tax payer's expense over this time in power?] Simple as that. I was shocked to hear that as much as half of all internet traffic in the UK is for the carriage of unlawful content. [You should be shocked because it's very likely all these figures have been completely made up.] If technical solutions can discourage piracy, then as a Government we are obliged to consider them. [hello - Big Brother - we love you. (of course I don't mean the stupid channel 4 programme here.) So now we're all to monitored and wire-tapped without so much as a court warrant IE everyone is treated as a potential criminal with the ISPs acting as inteeligence gatherers. So much for privacy and civil liberties then.]
Second, our creative businesses drive much of our economy. They provide not only tax revenues and jobs but also ensure that Britain punches above its weight on the global cultural stage. We are a creative people and we do these things well. These businesses will get no favours from government, but we should create a regulatory environment where they can operate without having to deal with illegal competition. [Can you define 'illegal competition' please? Give examples where possible - and also explain if it is in any way opposite to 'free publicity'. Furthermore, how does this apply to the fact most of these purported 'illegal' downloads are more likely going to be from American entertainment companies? Mind you now that we have an extradition treaty - any British citizen can be tried by American laws and be sent over there to stand trail. Something is deeply wrong there.]
Let me emphasise that nothing has been predetermined. [???? Really? ???] And I understand why internet service providers (ISPs), consumer groups and digital rights activists are disappointed that we have decided to consider a range of tougher and faster measures. But let me try, if I can, to reassure them. [But you quite obviously DON'T understand - and that's the whole problem. If you did you wouldn't have come out with this lazy knee-jerk reaction to want to rush through harsh ill-though-out draconian legislation - which has been the hallmark of NuLabour ever since they gained power.]
It is essential that film, music and other content companies do more to build joint services with ISPs, such as the deal between Virgin Media and Universal Music to allow unlimited music downloads for a monthly fee [still at the planning stage that one]. Surely it is self-evident — a no-brainer, if you like — that they need to build a win-win position with ISPs, so that they compete by developing new services for consumers rather than competing solely for market share. It’s that which will effect the sea change that we are looking for. [yeah - like they understand how media in the age of the internet and the end of scarcity works.]
To those who have raised their voices about the proposed changes this week, let me say that I hear their concerns. I have read their blogs and can live with the abuse (I’ve had worse). [He's read their blogs? Huh? Oh I guess one of his staff could hae printed off a few pages for him. I can't see Mandelson using a computer somehow... Wonder if he's on 'gaydar'?]
I made clear to the content industry that we would consider legislation that includes temporary account suspension only if it was seen as the sanction of last resort. It would only follow a well-established series of warnings and clear evidence that they were taking action to defend their own rights. This will not turn your ISP into Big Brother. The process is driven by rights holders reporting activity on public file-sharing websites [because they've been so good at that before now, with their suing of suing grannies and babies and dead people and even fax machines] rather than service providers monitoring individuals’ internet traffic. [errrr but aren't ISPs going to be the ones made to write to their subscribers with those threats of disconnection?]
I want to know more from digital rights groups and consumers about other steps that should be taken to protect people who may feel that they are at risk of being accused without good cause. [But only if there's a few free holidays and a few gourmet dinners in glamorous locations in it first - heh Mandy?] This could perhaps be because of legitimate file sharing, or because of others hijacking their connection. Having a fair, fast and effective appeals process will obviously be essential. [Yeah, like that'll all be *so* easy to prove.]
We are fast approaching the tenth anniversary of the trial in which Napster.com, the site that enabled the first real boom in file sharing, was shut down after legal action by record labels. This legal action was hugely expensive, time-consuming and ultimately did little for consumers. Why? Because it failed to encourage rights holders to develop new business models and did nothing to seek to change consumer behaviour. A decade on, we have another opportunity, and for some in the content industries, perhaps the last. [No, actually the smaller start up companies have been ahead of the game for years - it's only the larger entertainment giants that have been dragging their reluctant heels for so long.]
Ultimately the answer to combating digital piracy lies in the hands of those who own content and those who control access to the internet. [groan] Rights holders already have to take risks, and will have to take more — for example, by developing new online services such as Spotify that make much more of their back catalogue available in a way and at a price that makes sense to today’s consumers. The age of flogging a CD in HMV for £20 is well and truly over. [Tell the music/entertainment industry that!] Ask me what I think will finish off piracy as a real threat to our creators and creative businesses and the answer is obvious — it is the market. [Oooh how Thatcherite of you... yes, yes, yes, the Market will solve everything. Like it has so far...]
Provide customers with a good quality, cheap, safe and efficient experience, and they will ditch illegal downloading. If the threat of temporary account suspension and its implementation in a small number of cases helps to build a market to make this happen, then I believe it is worth our serious consideration.
[oh - it doesn't start to address so many of the problems - for instance - the non-legit availability of long deleted music from dead artists - or of ancient tv programs and films that for various reasons (usually arcane copyright issues -quite usually with music rights) never get released - but all these things - which are calling out for copyright laws to be rewritten wholesale get totally overlooked all because executives at EMI are pissing themselves that a few teens might be downloading the latest (insert name of current popular artist here) tune for their iPods... *gah!*]
Now, remind me again - who elected this man? And how did he get to represent - anyone?
And is giving him a nice holiday and a few posh meals all it takes to get any government policy through? Can we club together to do that? Because it's a funny (peculiar) kind of democracy we're running here...
. . . that’s why we must stop illegal file sharing and give the creative industries a breathing space.
This is Peter Mandel's article - with annotations in brackets by me:
It was said this week by a former colleague of mine (anonymously, of course) [well of course - because you're such a well known dick and so viciously pettily vindictive and will make their life very difficult] that I do not “get the internet”. While I am still something of a novice when it comes to streaming and downloads, I have been around long enough to know that piracy is wrong. That is why my department [IE - Mandelson alone] decided to consider strengthening proposals to tackle illegal file sharing and downloading.
[piracy is wrong is it? Hmmmm. Always? Hmmmmm. well, ok, how ignorant can you get? Anyone remember Radio Caroline? It was pirate Radio that led to the BBC to finally and even then rather reluctantly get in step with the rest of the groovy 1960s world and introduce Radio One - to gain a whole audience of young people, an audience that it had hitherto been totally ignoring. Later - with the advent of home compact cassette recording devices where 'home taping was [supposedly] killing music' - yet, strangely enough the industry - rather than collapsing - actually thrived. Otherwise how would it have the vast resources it currently has to persecute individuals through the courts or to lobby easily swayed politicians? *cough*]
The thinking behind this is clear and has nothing to do with dinners in Corfu. [Yeah right. We believe you. *cough*.] The Government [is it now? So you're the Government now are you?] decided to reopen the issue of suspending internet connections as a sanction of last resort against the most egregious offenders for two simple reasons.
First, taking something for nothing, without permission, and with no compensation for the person who created and owns it, is wrong. [Would you like to explain that principle to the record companies you're supporting? For example a certain Mr Morrissey has asked fans NOT to buy a compilation of his early works because HE IS NOT BEING PAID OR COMPENSATED FOR IT! Not only that - can we apply this principle to the 'free' holidays and meals and various other perks you've (and many other MPs have) been enjoying at the tax payer's expense over this time in power?] Simple as that. I was shocked to hear that as much as half of all internet traffic in the UK is for the carriage of unlawful content. [You should be shocked because it's very likely all these figures have been completely made up.] If technical solutions can discourage piracy, then as a Government we are obliged to consider them. [hello - Big Brother - we love you. (of course I don't mean the stupid channel 4 programme here.) So now we're all to monitored and wire-tapped without so much as a court warrant IE everyone is treated as a potential criminal with the ISPs acting as inteeligence gatherers. So much for privacy and civil liberties then.]
Second, our creative businesses drive much of our economy. They provide not only tax revenues and jobs but also ensure that Britain punches above its weight on the global cultural stage. We are a creative people and we do these things well. These businesses will get no favours from government, but we should create a regulatory environment where they can operate without having to deal with illegal competition. [Can you define 'illegal competition' please? Give examples where possible - and also explain if it is in any way opposite to 'free publicity'. Furthermore, how does this apply to the fact most of these purported 'illegal' downloads are more likely going to be from American entertainment companies? Mind you now that we have an extradition treaty - any British citizen can be tried by American laws and be sent over there to stand trail. Something is deeply wrong there.]
Let me emphasise that nothing has been predetermined. [???? Really? ???] And I understand why internet service providers (ISPs), consumer groups and digital rights activists are disappointed that we have decided to consider a range of tougher and faster measures. But let me try, if I can, to reassure them. [But you quite obviously DON'T understand - and that's the whole problem. If you did you wouldn't have come out with this lazy knee-jerk reaction to want to rush through harsh ill-though-out draconian legislation - which has been the hallmark of NuLabour ever since they gained power.]
It is essential that film, music and other content companies do more to build joint services with ISPs, such as the deal between Virgin Media and Universal Music to allow unlimited music downloads for a monthly fee [still at the planning stage that one]. Surely it is self-evident — a no-brainer, if you like — that they need to build a win-win position with ISPs, so that they compete by developing new services for consumers rather than competing solely for market share. It’s that which will effect the sea change that we are looking for. [yeah - like they understand how media in the age of the internet and the end of scarcity works.]
To those who have raised their voices about the proposed changes this week, let me say that I hear their concerns. I have read their blogs and can live with the abuse (I’ve had worse). [He's read their blogs? Huh? Oh I guess one of his staff could hae printed off a few pages for him. I can't see Mandelson using a computer somehow... Wonder if he's on 'gaydar'?]
I made clear to the content industry that we would consider legislation that includes temporary account suspension only if it was seen as the sanction of last resort. It would only follow a well-established series of warnings and clear evidence that they were taking action to defend their own rights. This will not turn your ISP into Big Brother. The process is driven by rights holders reporting activity on public file-sharing websites [because they've been so good at that before now, with their suing of suing grannies and babies and dead people and even fax machines] rather than service providers monitoring individuals’ internet traffic. [errrr but aren't ISPs going to be the ones made to write to their subscribers with those threats of disconnection?]
I want to know more from digital rights groups and consumers about other steps that should be taken to protect people who may feel that they are at risk of being accused without good cause. [But only if there's a few free holidays and a few gourmet dinners in glamorous locations in it first - heh Mandy?] This could perhaps be because of legitimate file sharing, or because of others hijacking their connection. Having a fair, fast and effective appeals process will obviously be essential. [Yeah, like that'll all be *so* easy to prove.]
We are fast approaching the tenth anniversary of the trial in which Napster.com, the site that enabled the first real boom in file sharing, was shut down after legal action by record labels. This legal action was hugely expensive, time-consuming and ultimately did little for consumers. Why? Because it failed to encourage rights holders to develop new business models and did nothing to seek to change consumer behaviour. A decade on, we have another opportunity, and for some in the content industries, perhaps the last. [No, actually the smaller start up companies have been ahead of the game for years - it's only the larger entertainment giants that have been dragging their reluctant heels for so long.]
Ultimately the answer to combating digital piracy lies in the hands of those who own content and those who control access to the internet. [groan] Rights holders already have to take risks, and will have to take more — for example, by developing new online services such as Spotify that make much more of their back catalogue available in a way and at a price that makes sense to today’s consumers. The age of flogging a CD in HMV for £20 is well and truly over. [Tell the music/entertainment industry that!] Ask me what I think will finish off piracy as a real threat to our creators and creative businesses and the answer is obvious — it is the market. [Oooh how Thatcherite of you... yes, yes, yes, the Market will solve everything. Like it has so far...]
Provide customers with a good quality, cheap, safe and efficient experience, and they will ditch illegal downloading. If the threat of temporary account suspension and its implementation in a small number of cases helps to build a market to make this happen, then I believe it is worth our serious consideration.
[oh - it doesn't start to address so many of the problems - for instance - the non-legit availability of long deleted music from dead artists - or of ancient tv programs and films that for various reasons (usually arcane copyright issues -quite usually with music rights) never get released - but all these things - which are calling out for copyright laws to be rewritten wholesale get totally overlooked all because executives at EMI are pissing themselves that a few teens might be downloading the latest (insert name of current popular artist here) tune for their iPods... *gah!*]
Now, remind me again - who elected this man? And how did he get to represent - anyone?
And is giving him a nice holiday and a few posh meals all it takes to get any government policy through? Can we club together to do that? Because it's a funny (peculiar) kind of democracy we're running here...
innocent Frenchman scares American Airlines with pocket gadget
One of my bugbears is the extent of airport security paranoia - it really is totally ridiculous and aggravating - and I'll wager doesn't make any of us much safer from proper terrorists.
Charles Bremner - Times Online - WBLG: Frenchman scares American Airlines with pocket gadget
Charles Bremner - Times Online - WBLG: Frenchman scares American Airlines with pocket gadget
If I didn't dislike Mandelson enough...
This is how I imagine how his informal little dinner chat over the fabulous gourmet meal in Rothchild's Corfu villa went down...
David Geffen: "Ooooh, (crocodile tears) boo-hoo, boo-ooooh Mandy, you've no idea how difficult it is being a multi-billionaire - I mean, I just don't know where my next few million dollars are going to come from any more. Especially not with that evil, evil, evil, internets - did you know people are out there practically STEALING the Almas Caviar out of my mouth? How am I ever going to pay for my breakfast lobster thermidor and oh yes, my artistes their pittance - if those good-for-nothing normal people go around downloading the music for free?"
Mandelson -"ooooh poor, poor Daaaavid, [oh, you're so scrummy you multi-billionaire gay you] (pass the white truffles please) - that's absolutely heart breaking. I'll tell you what - when I get home I'll make sure our lot take the internet piracy thing a lot more seriously. Like, oh, I don't know - let's say, no more internet for those file sharers and massive fines and long prison sentences for all who transgress - will that do you?"
David Griffin: "Well -it's a start... but if you could at some point in the future start fining the people who don't buy music from my record label - that would be good too. Oh, look the desert course has arrived - will you take your rent boys here or would you like to retire to your room?"
"Oooh rent boys - my favourite - hope they'll be gentle on my prostrate though..."
There now follows some free advice for the music entertainment industry on how to combat pirates...
1. Simply Totally ditch CD releases (and even iTunes) - go back to vinyl only releases.
[Well let's face it - it all started going wrong for the music industry when they practically forced every one to go over to CDs. Yes, at the time it was a boom time for the industry as most people ended up replacing their vinyl record collections with CDs... but that boom time is long over. Unfortunately - all that extra income got the industry thinking this was going to be the normal state of affairs from then on... Well, this was back when there weren't any such thing as CD-burners on computers. Let along computer games and mobile phones and internet access for people to spend their disposal income on. Then later there came those pesky MPG files and those damn iPods... and well, it was all downhill from then on.
Yet the industry is still frozen at that very point back in the Eighties and totally unable to comprehend what has happened in the rest the world since then - all they know is they still want to be making those huge amounts of money... except they have been repeatedly and so absurdly lazy-ass about facing up to how they could now be earning money from music in the internet age...
So bearing that in mind - they really should give up on the modern age - it's apparent they don't understand it, can't deal with it - and are unlikely to ever catch up now and should go BACK to what they know best - vinyl records - which are that little bit harder to digitize - hell, especially since hardly anyone has record players any more... and when the technology market starts churning out hundreds of those record players that hook up to computers and turn everything you can play on them into sound files... well, then the music industry can go back to producing rolls for player pianos.
David Geffen: "Ooooh, (crocodile tears) boo-hoo, boo-ooooh Mandy, you've no idea how difficult it is being a multi-billionaire - I mean, I just don't know where my next few million dollars are going to come from any more. Especially not with that evil, evil, evil, internets - did you know people are out there practically STEALING the Almas Caviar out of my mouth? How am I ever going to pay for my breakfast lobster thermidor and oh yes, my artistes their pittance - if those good-for-nothing normal people go around downloading the music for free?"
Mandelson -"ooooh poor, poor Daaaavid, [oh, you're so scrummy you multi-billionaire gay you] (pass the white truffles please) - that's absolutely heart breaking. I'll tell you what - when I get home I'll make sure our lot take the internet piracy thing a lot more seriously. Like, oh, I don't know - let's say, no more internet for those file sharers and massive fines and long prison sentences for all who transgress - will that do you?"
David Griffin: "Well -it's a start... but if you could at some point in the future start fining the people who don't buy music from my record label - that would be good too. Oh, look the desert course has arrived - will you take your rent boys here or would you like to retire to your room?"
"Oooh rent boys - my favourite - hope they'll be gentle on my prostrate though..."
There now follows some free advice for the music entertainment industry on how to combat pirates...
1. Simply Totally ditch CD releases (and even iTunes) - go back to vinyl only releases.
[Well let's face it - it all started going wrong for the music industry when they practically forced every one to go over to CDs. Yes, at the time it was a boom time for the industry as most people ended up replacing their vinyl record collections with CDs... but that boom time is long over. Unfortunately - all that extra income got the industry thinking this was going to be the normal state of affairs from then on... Well, this was back when there weren't any such thing as CD-burners on computers. Let along computer games and mobile phones and internet access for people to spend their disposal income on. Then later there came those pesky MPG files and those damn iPods... and well, it was all downhill from then on.
Yet the industry is still frozen at that very point back in the Eighties and totally unable to comprehend what has happened in the rest the world since then - all they know is they still want to be making those huge amounts of money... except they have been repeatedly and so absurdly lazy-ass about facing up to how they could now be earning money from music in the internet age...
So bearing that in mind - they really should give up on the modern age - it's apparent they don't understand it, can't deal with it - and are unlikely to ever catch up now and should go BACK to what they know best - vinyl records - which are that little bit harder to digitize - hell, especially since hardly anyone has record players any more... and when the technology market starts churning out hundreds of those record players that hook up to computers and turn everything you can play on them into sound files... well, then the music industry can go back to producing rolls for player pianos.
stupid names
So there was this big expensive campaign on tv recently - where Alice Cooper, Ringo and some others were going about their lives pronouncing how they wouldn't be so internationally famous now if they'd stuck to their original humdrum names... so because of that the staidly named Norwich Union is to rebrand it's self as 'Aviva'. Or something like that.
Oh.
But Aviva is a made-up nonsense name - and it means nothing to anyone. (Not to mention that it sounds more like a brand of bottled spring water.) It won't mean anything until it's acquired one over time. So, so far it's only connection with anything is with the recent trend for big companies to want to call themselves by nonsense made up names. Oh and btw trying to make a link between the name of a corporation and a celebrity - no, that doesn't work. A person working in show business is not the same as a company. And surely since insurance is a boring business - then it's perfectly fine for an insurance company to have a boring name. Plus I'd like to know how much money Norwich Union spent on those flashy adverts - after all shouldn't that money have been better deployed giving it's costumers better deals? Mmmmmm?
Moreover rebrands are usually a massive waste of time, cost staggeringly huge amounts of money and frequently end up being confusing for customers - for example witness the debacle of the Post Office wanting to call it's 'Consignia' - wtf?
I'm mentioning all this because Nokia* have launched a web based user generated content sharing site called Ovi. But what the hell is an 'Ovi'? To me it sounds more like Ovum - a egg. So what on Earth have eggs got to do with mobile phones and the internets and sharing photos and movies etc.? I'm confused already. Oh well, at least it's only three letters long and should be easy enough to remember. But it has prompted me to notice the tide of nonsensically named companies that there are now.
[*Nokia, now this is a good no-nonsense nonsense name - it's just the name of a Finnish town.]
Oh.
But Aviva is a made-up nonsense name - and it means nothing to anyone. (Not to mention that it sounds more like a brand of bottled spring water.) It won't mean anything until it's acquired one over time. So, so far it's only connection with anything is with the recent trend for big companies to want to call themselves by nonsense made up names. Oh and btw trying to make a link between the name of a corporation and a celebrity - no, that doesn't work. A person working in show business is not the same as a company. And surely since insurance is a boring business - then it's perfectly fine for an insurance company to have a boring name. Plus I'd like to know how much money Norwich Union spent on those flashy adverts - after all shouldn't that money have been better deployed giving it's costumers better deals? Mmmmmm?
Moreover rebrands are usually a massive waste of time, cost staggeringly huge amounts of money and frequently end up being confusing for customers - for example witness the debacle of the Post Office wanting to call it's 'Consignia' - wtf?
I'm mentioning all this because Nokia* have launched a web based user generated content sharing site called Ovi. But what the hell is an 'Ovi'? To me it sounds more like Ovum - a egg. So what on Earth have eggs got to do with mobile phones and the internets and sharing photos and movies etc.? I'm confused already. Oh well, at least it's only three letters long and should be easy enough to remember. But it has prompted me to notice the tide of nonsensically named companies that there are now.
[*Nokia, now this is a good no-nonsense nonsense name - it's just the name of a Finnish town.]
Superheroes Decadence by Donald Soffritti
I wonder if this cartoonist ever saw Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy on the Sponge Bob cartoons?
When comic book heroes and villains get old: Superheroes Decadence by Donald Soffritti
When comic book heroes and villains get old: Superheroes Decadence by Donald Soffritti
Celebrating 20 Years of Bat-Mania (Tim Burton Edition)
20 effin' years?!
Where does the time go?
AMC - Blogs - SciFi Scanner - Celebrating 20 Years of Bat-Mania (Tim Burton Edition)
Where does the time go?
AMC - Blogs - SciFi Scanner - Celebrating 20 Years of Bat-Mania (Tim Burton Edition)
US Consumers Finally Growing Some Damned Sense, Not Buying Bottled Water
Wanna know a secret? I've been wishing for a recession for quite a few years now - because I've long known that people act a lot less stupidly in leaner times.
This is a start - Consumers Finally Growing Some Damned Sense, Not Buying Bottled Water but we've still got a ways to go yet.
This is a start - Consumers Finally Growing Some Damned Sense, Not Buying Bottled Water but we've still got a ways to go yet.
...and this is how NuLabour does things...
and this is how it's run things ever since it's been in power. IE Having meetings with very rich powerful people and doing whatever they're told - regardless of the consequences. (Examples of consequences? things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - the global banking crisis.)
Mandelson launches crackdown on file sharing... just days after meeting with record producer | Mail Online
But the weird thing is - I remember back in the days just before and around the time it got into power it was forever getting cosy in with the trendy new bands of the day - inviting Oasis and other 'Brit-pop' stars into Number 10 for tea parties and the like to show everyone that they were down with the young people... But now here they are doing something which is really going to piss the young people off (and anyone with an internet connection) - way to go Mandy. You idiot.
Mandelson launches crackdown on file sharing... just days after meeting with record producer | Mail Online
But the weird thing is - I remember back in the days just before and around the time it got into power it was forever getting cosy in with the trendy new bands of the day - inviting Oasis and other 'Brit-pop' stars into Number 10 for tea parties and the like to show everyone that they were down with the young people... But now here they are doing something which is really going to piss the young people off (and anyone with an internet connection) - way to go Mandy. You idiot.
what are they saying about me? is it rude?
One of my toys pix has made it to some sort of German site - A series of top ten of things or something.
Spielen Spielzeuge? - Platz 10 in Die 10 schaurigsten Geheimnisse von Spielzeug von Peter Glaser
Spielen Spielzeuge? - Platz 10 in Die 10 schaurigsten Geheimnisse von Spielzeug von Peter Glaser
chips with your passport?
Why chips in passports and ID cards are a stupid idea.
Blimey - even the Economist thinks chips are a bad idea. No doubt the Govt. response will be *fingers in ears* "la-la-la - can't hear you - la-la-la!!!"
Blimey - even the Economist thinks chips are a bad idea. No doubt the Govt. response will be *fingers in ears* "la-la-la - can't hear you - la-la-la!!!"
we're doomed
None of this comes as news to me - but it's worth noting anyway:
Consumerism is 'eating the future'
The thing is, the current economic recession could mark a change of tide on how we go about things from now on... but you just know it won't. The emphasis is still all on trying to scramble back to where we were in the 'boom times'... with whole Governments and industry in total denial that was all based on smoke and mirrors.
So - in short, we're doomed. *sigh*
Consumerism is 'eating the future'
The thing is, the current economic recession could mark a change of tide on how we go about things from now on... but you just know it won't. The emphasis is still all on trying to scramble back to where we were in the 'boom times'... with whole Governments and industry in total denial that was all based on smoke and mirrors.
So - in short, we're doomed. *sigh*
Calvin Harris - Humanthesizer - the first human synth
coo - so when is someone going to take this idea and make it into a live show?
Murdoch's fading empire (one can hope)
Oh boo hoo. Apparently Rupert Murdock's losing money. So he's making plans to charge for all his news websites by next summer. Oh please, please, please let this scheme fall completely flat on it's face and herald the death of his dodgy empire - he's had far too much power and influence over public opinion in the world - and particularly in UK politics for far too long.
And spot the inherent contradictions in this statement: "Quality journalism is not cheap," says the man who publishes - the Sun and the News of the World. Oh wait we're supposed to think of the Times and the Wall Street Journal when he says that...mmmm. Furthermore he expects that those Sun/NOW readers (aka plebs) will be happy to fork out for their celebrity gossip too. Oh please let that backfire too, please can we see an end to this insane pathetic obsession so many people have with a small handful of shallow vacuous assholes who seriously don't deserve the attention.
And spot the inherent contradictions in this statement: "Quality journalism is not cheap," says the man who publishes - the Sun and the News of the World. Oh wait we're supposed to think of the Times and the Wall Street Journal when he says that...mmmm. Furthermore he expects that those Sun/NOW readers (aka plebs) will be happy to fork out for their celebrity gossip too. Oh please let that backfire too, please can we see an end to this insane pathetic obsession so many people have with a small handful of shallow vacuous assholes who seriously don't deserve the attention.
UFO seen on BBC Look North webcam
yeah - that'll be what we call - 'a fly'. God - it really must be a slooooooow week for news then...
link dump
Spent a long time wandering around campblood - reading the reviews - discovering who's gay in the horror film world, and reading the interviews.
Then finding this ancient article about Tim McBride (apparently he was in Friday 13 - Part 2).
Then finding this ancient article about Tim McBride (apparently he was in Friday 13 - Part 2).
Database UK
Our Govt. sure loves a database...
It's been playing on our fears of terrorism and identity theft and immigration to try and push it's ID card and it's database on us all for a while now. But that's not enough - it's now using the populations fear of paedophiles to get anyone who goes near children to pay an extra £65 for a Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) on top of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check they already have to undergo every year...
I think the real clowns are the ones behind this stupid scheme.
It's been playing on our fears of terrorism and identity theft and immigration to try and push it's ID card and it's database on us all for a while now. But that's not enough - it's now using the populations fear of paedophiles to get anyone who goes near children to pay an extra £65 for a Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) on top of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check they already have to undergo every year...
I think the real clowns are the ones behind this stupid scheme.
let's advertise our monolopy superfast broadband
Karoo - "Our new generation, up to 24Mbps broadband isn't just fast - it's superfast and reliable, so you can download films, music and photos faster...
But if you do - and we arbitrarily decide that we don't like what you're downloading - we'll cut you off without warning. Then charge you again to reconnect you. Well, only after we've got you to come into our offices to sign a piece of paper admitting you were bad and promise you won't do anything naughty ever again. And if you don't like it -tough, because there isn't another ISP you can go to in Hull.
It all seems a bit harsh and totally unfair.
Even the local MP there has put his oar in. Good for him.
- and anyway, what happened to all this competition that was supposed to happen as part of the telecommunication's privatisation that happened back in the 80s? Hmmmm? Oh wait -it's up in Hull - nobody cares what happens up there.
And another thing - what is the deal with ISPs constantly whining about how they can't provide a certain level of service if people are -you know, actually using the internet for anything more than a bit of web browsing and email of a evening... aren't they just admitting that they can't actually provide the service people are paying them for? But they do this while advertising constantly improving speeds, and charging more for those speeds? There's something fishy going on here.
But if you do - and we arbitrarily decide that we don't like what you're downloading - we'll cut you off without warning. Then charge you again to reconnect you. Well, only after we've got you to come into our offices to sign a piece of paper admitting you were bad and promise you won't do anything naughty ever again. And if you don't like it -tough, because there isn't another ISP you can go to in Hull.
It all seems a bit harsh and totally unfair.
Even the local MP there has put his oar in. Good for him.
- and anyway, what happened to all this competition that was supposed to happen as part of the telecommunication's privatisation that happened back in the 80s? Hmmmm? Oh wait -it's up in Hull - nobody cares what happens up there.
And another thing - what is the deal with ISPs constantly whining about how they can't provide a certain level of service if people are -you know, actually using the internet for anything more than a bit of web browsing and email of a evening... aren't they just admitting that they can't actually provide the service people are paying them for? But they do this while advertising constantly improving speeds, and charging more for those speeds? There's something fishy going on here.
into the memory hole...
Owners of Amazon's Kindle electronic book reader have received a nasty surprise, after discovering that copies of books by George Orwell had been deleted from their gadgets without their knowledge.
I can see the Chinese and other oppressive regimes suddenly taking an interest in this... a book that can be remotely censored. They must be salivating at the potential.
ordinary man takes photo of fish and chip shop - and gets arrested for terrorism for it
well, of course we all know that the Taliban are plotting terrorist attacks against our high street fish and chip shops don't we? No? Because that's the only way this story of how Alex Turner got arrested under section 44 of the prevention of terrorism act makes any sense.
But when it's so easy to intimidate a police woman merely by being 5 foot 11 inches tall and taking her photo - then I think it's time to give up - the terrorists have won already. Obviously she'd simply die of fright if ever a taller man - with a beard were to go "Boo!" at her.
Of course - there's another law altogether for the police - whenever they feel like it they can take pictures of whoever they like, whenever they like: Police photograph anti-airport campaigners talking to MP.* Yes, you read that right - don't you dare go and talk to your MP - lest you want the police to suspect you of being one of those evil terrorists and put you on their lists.
The war on street photography
*oh noes - I linked to a Daily Mail article. I feel dirty.
But when it's so easy to intimidate a police woman merely by being 5 foot 11 inches tall and taking her photo - then I think it's time to give up - the terrorists have won already. Obviously she'd simply die of fright if ever a taller man - with a beard were to go "Boo!" at her.
Of course - there's another law altogether for the police - whenever they feel like it they can take pictures of whoever they like, whenever they like: Police photograph anti-airport campaigners talking to MP.* Yes, you read that right - don't you dare go and talk to your MP - lest you want the police to suspect you of being one of those evil terrorists and put you on their lists.
The war on street photography
*oh noes - I linked to a Daily Mail article. I feel dirty.
why are we in Afghanstan ....
With the news full of how a few more British troops have died in duty in Afghanistan - Newsnight had tonight's whole program dedicated to asking 'what are we doing there...'
Throughout the whole program (and incidentally in the Prime Minister answers in Parliament's question time) not one person bothered to mention the real reason we're there, and why the US is there and why the Soviets where once there... it's all because duh the place is steeped in oil and gas. [But Gordon Brown couldn't say that - he just mumbled some nonsense about protecting us from terrorists. Which is the standard threadbare blanket excuse for everything these days.]
Which is all the more ironic considering that in the same question time the Prime Minister was patting himself on the back that the G20 where supposedly all pulling together to agree to maybe possibly vaguely do something about climate change... one day. Because yeah, if they ever do get to extract all that oil and gas - that won't increase carbon levels one jot will it. *eyeroll*
Throughout the whole program (and incidentally in the Prime Minister answers in Parliament's question time) not one person bothered to mention the real reason we're there, and why the US is there and why the Soviets where once there... it's all because duh the place is steeped in oil and gas. [But Gordon Brown couldn't say that - he just mumbled some nonsense about protecting us from terrorists. Which is the standard threadbare blanket excuse for everything these days.]
Which is all the more ironic considering that in the same question time the Prime Minister was patting himself on the back that the G20 where supposedly all pulling together to agree to maybe possibly vaguely do something about climate change... one day. Because yeah, if they ever do get to extract all that oil and gas - that won't increase carbon levels one jot will it. *eyeroll*
.JPG)
wash care label? -what's that?
Soooo - the bf is currently on a whole big trying-to-be-domesticated kick. Which would be great if he wasn't so bad at it, and he's very bad at it. Sometimes I can't help wondering if he hasn't spent most of his life living in a cave.
This morning he did the washing. 'Oh that's good' I thought. But then noticed - 'ooooh no - he's washed my current new favourite black t-shirt in with the bath and pedestal mats'. I mean, first things first - pedestal mats - eurgh! They're a mat that is designed to catch piss. I mean - if you've had an accident - surely it's much better that it goes on the floor where it can be quickly and easily mopped up? Not left to soak into a mat and lie there stinking until it gets washed? Secondly, they're fluffy and so now I've got a black t-shirt and black boxer shorts that are now covered in a thick layer of bath mat fluff. Ew.
Now I've got to find me a big roll of sellotape to get the worst of the fluff off...
This morning he did the washing. 'Oh that's good' I thought. But then noticed - 'ooooh no - he's washed my current new favourite black t-shirt in with the bath and pedestal mats'. I mean, first things first - pedestal mats - eurgh! They're a mat that is designed to catch piss. I mean - if you've had an accident - surely it's much better that it goes on the floor where it can be quickly and easily mopped up? Not left to soak into a mat and lie there stinking until it gets washed? Secondly, they're fluffy and so now I've got a black t-shirt and black boxer shorts that are now covered in a thick layer of bath mat fluff. Ew.
Now I've got to find me a big roll of sellotape to get the worst of the fluff off...
some bookmark dumping
Ken Livingstone: Privatisation has been a train wreck
Here's some out of date video podcasts for Creative Zen players... If it was such a good idea they should have kept it up...
I'm tired of seeing so many promising ideas just wither and die on the vine through neglect.
"The attempt of National Express to avoid any consequences for their other franchises from their abandonment of the east coast service is just another example of the privateers trying to take the public sector for a ride. As Lord Adonis says, "It is simply unacceptable to reap the benefits of contracts when times are good, only to walk away from them when times become more challenging."
Time and again, we have seen the nationalisation of losses and the privatisation of profits."
Here's some out of date video podcasts for Creative Zen players... If it was such a good idea they should have kept it up...
I'm tired of seeing so many promising ideas just wither and die on the vine through neglect.
Dollhouse episode seven: Echoes
Dollhouse season one, episode seven: Echoes | Anna Pickard | Culture | guardian.co.uk
Choice quotes:
At this point the programme-makers just threw a whole bunch of syllables into something pharmaceuticalish. The student had ingested "a psychotropic modification of ridiculouslongmadeupnamix".
"hippocampus randomwordus"
"the psychotropic notawordamol."
(except my boyf. -who's a Doctor, recognised some of those words and stuff... so ha! do your research you sad journo.)
..."some big cheese in the Rossum Corporation (whatever that is)"...
Oh come on! Am I the only person in the world who gets that reference? Rossum? As in "Rossum's Universal Robots" - as in R.U.R. - the play by Karel Čapek. The play where we got the word 'Robot' from?
Oh well, everyone will know soon enough - I've just read in my googling that's there's a film been made of it - and will be released sometime next year.
Choice quotes:
At this point the programme-makers just threw a whole bunch of syllables into something pharmaceuticalish. The student had ingested "a psychotropic modification of ridiculouslongmadeupnamix".
"hippocampus randomwordus"
"the psychotropic notawordamol."
(except my boyf. -who's a Doctor, recognised some of those words and stuff... so ha! do your research you sad journo.)
..."some big cheese in the Rossum Corporation (whatever that is)"...
Oh come on! Am I the only person in the world who gets that reference? Rossum? As in "Rossum's Universal Robots" - as in R.U.R. - the play by Karel Čapek. The play where we got the word 'Robot' from?
Oh well, everyone will know soon enough - I've just read in my googling that's there's a film been made of it - and will be released sometime next year.
mini
For a long while now - I've thought if I ever where to get some money I might buy myself one of those mac minis. Not for any good reason - I just thought it'd be handy and I could see first hand what the fuss about the damn things was. Because to be honest I can't see what the fuss is about from the admittedly limited experiences I've had with macs*.
Anyway that aside - I had a look at them on the Apple store today and jesus what! the prices! £500 for the meh spec'ed one and £650 for the one I'd be more interested in. And for that they still don't come with a keyboard and mouse.**
Well sod that - I think I'll manage to live on in a mac free world for a bit longer yet.
A cheap netbook with some form of linux on it might be nice... (and a LOT more affordable.)
[*IE - when I was on a college course a year so back - they had macs and the damn things kept crashing on me - and had to be constantly rebooted. I also hated that you couldn't just plug in a thumbdrive in and just pull it out again when you'd finished like you can on XP and Vista - what this business where you have to drag it to the trash bin before you unplug it? Jezus - that was how it did things back with floppy disks in the bloody Eighties - has it not progressed beyond that yet? That drove me insane then too. Still nannying the user who's too thick to see when the drive is being written to or something?]
[**not that I'd ever want a 'mighty mouse' - that was driving me mad at college too. Oh, that stupid nipple thing on top - that you had to paw like crazy to scroll through anything. And then it would gunge up and is totally impossible to clean. What is wrong with Apple? Why the hell can't they make a decent mouse. Ever. I mean they look nice - but no doubt they would crucify any other manufacturer who would make a mouse that looked as good as a Mac one - but had proper functionality - like pretty much any other mouse in the world.]
Anyway that aside - I had a look at them on the Apple store today and jesus what! the prices! £500 for the meh spec'ed one and £650 for the one I'd be more interested in. And for that they still don't come with a keyboard and mouse.**
Well sod that - I think I'll manage to live on in a mac free world for a bit longer yet.
A cheap netbook with some form of linux on it might be nice... (and a LOT more affordable.)
[*IE - when I was on a college course a year so back - they had macs and the damn things kept crashing on me - and had to be constantly rebooted. I also hated that you couldn't just plug in a thumbdrive in and just pull it out again when you'd finished like you can on XP and Vista - what this business where you have to drag it to the trash bin before you unplug it? Jezus - that was how it did things back with floppy disks in the bloody Eighties - has it not progressed beyond that yet? That drove me insane then too. Still nannying the user who's too thick to see when the drive is being written to or something?]
[**not that I'd ever want a 'mighty mouse' - that was driving me mad at college too. Oh, that stupid nipple thing on top - that you had to paw like crazy to scroll through anything. And then it would gunge up and is totally impossible to clean. What is wrong with Apple? Why the hell can't they make a decent mouse. Ever. I mean they look nice - but no doubt they would crucify any other manufacturer who would make a mouse that looked as good as a Mac one - but had proper functionality - like pretty much any other mouse in the world.]
5 days and counting...
I dunno - when your ISP can't get you onto Yahoo - one of the most popular ...what is yahoo exactly? A portal? web presence? anyway - whatever - when you can't get onto yahoo and more importantly for me - flickr - then that ISP isn't exactly fit for purpose is it?
Oh virgin.net - you are so about to be dumped.
this is supposed to be surprising news?
Jobs shortage 'will see 80,000 new graduates unemployed'
Yeah - there's thing called 'supply and demand' right - what it means is when a commodity is rare - they can command a high price, but when something is a lot more commonplace - they only command a lower price. So when the aim is get 50% of young people onto university courses (whether they're suited to that or not) mmmm - someone somewhere hasn't been thinking things through properly.
That's without going into the fact that the sheer numbers of young people going into universities now makes them more like conveyor-belt driven education factories.
Oh and apparently there's still a dire shortage of electricians and plumbers in the UK - but no one cares about those sort of things do they?
This is what you get when you have no-one but middle-class people* running the country - they're only able to see what they want for themselves and their children and just can't see the wider picture.
*this applies to ALL of the parties.
Yeah - there's thing called 'supply and demand' right - what it means is when a commodity is rare - they can command a high price, but when something is a lot more commonplace - they only command a lower price. So when the aim is get 50% of young people onto university courses (whether they're suited to that or not) mmmm - someone somewhere hasn't been thinking things through properly.
That's without going into the fact that the sheer numbers of young people going into universities now makes them more like conveyor-belt driven education factories.
Oh and apparently there's still a dire shortage of electricians and plumbers in the UK - but no one cares about those sort of things do they?
This is what you get when you have no-one but middle-class people* running the country - they're only able to see what they want for themselves and their children and just can't see the wider picture.
*this applies to ALL of the parties.
Bankers rhymes with... **** with good reason
I am slowly being driven insane by the banking system in this country.
Due to reasons too boring to go into here - I don't have a bank account. Up to know it's not bothered me too much – it's been an inconvenience certainly – but I've muddled through somehow without one for the past few years.
Now very recently I've come into a modest inheritance – so I have some actual money I need to put into a bank. Now you might think that in the current economic climate any bank would be desperate for any customer with a bit of money. Oh, but you'd be wrong. Very wrong. Because I haven't had a bank account for so long - it turns out I haven't got a credit rating. Big surprise there. But without a credit rating – a bank won't give me an account. Yes, it turns out you pretty much need a bank account to be able to er, open a bank account.... go figure!
Let's let this sink in... I haven't got a credit rating – well, because I haven't had a bank account for a while. So they won't give me a bank account because I haven't got a credit rating... Now I could understand this if I was asking for a mortgage or a loan or even a credit card – but no, all I want is a current account.
OK. So after being given the run-a-round – it turns out there are these super basic bank accounts you can get – they're really there because our government in it's 'wisdom' (*chokes*) has decided to phase out the old Giro cheque you used to be able to cash at a Post Office - so if you're on benefits you get one of these basic accounts and the Government pays the benefits straight into that account. [An aside – it used to be the case that when you signed on – an actual real life physical cheque would be posted to you and reach you 3 days later. But in this fast modern electronic world – where you would think it could reach you – at least the very next day – but no, instead it takes a whole day extra! No, I have no idea why this should be.]
Anyhow – I apply in one of these high street places for their basic account. I take in my proof of ID and utility bills to prove my address – only to be told it takes up to a MONTH to set up the account! Jeez what do they find to do in a whole month? But regardless - I put the paper work in – and the next day knowing I couldn't possibly wait that long went over to another bank – where I was told it would only take 7 to 10 working days. I applied for their basic account. Thinking at the worst having two accounts can't hurt.
Turns out it was just as well I did because to add insult to injury I received a letter today from the first bank saying they were unable to process my application – because I hadn't indicated whether I was a bankrupt or subject to an IVA. (Whatever that is.) Er, but when I handed the form in – it was to a member of staff who checked it over before taking it from me – if there was anything missing on the form – she would have told me there and then. So I believe they are lying – and because they think they're dealing with a unemployed person they don't care if I have an account with them or not (they don't make a profit from these accounts). But they expect me to go in and reapply and wait ANOTHER MONTH for them to get their act together... Er, I don't think I'll be doing that somehow.
Sigh.
And this has been only a part of the hassles I've had trying to open an account – there was another story where a staff member was on holiday for a week – so couldn't see me... and blah blah blah. Oh it's just frustrating to relate - and is all doubt to ass-hat incompetence.
So at the end of the day I am not in the least bit surprised that the banking system is in such a deep,deep crisis – it's obviously run by a bunch of complete brain-dead chimpanzees who couldn't find their own arse with both hands and a map...
Once (maybe that should IF) I ever get access to my own money – I'm not sure I'll want it sitting in a bank account. I might be better off keeping it under the mattress!
Due to reasons too boring to go into here - I don't have a bank account. Up to know it's not bothered me too much – it's been an inconvenience certainly – but I've muddled through somehow without one for the past few years.
Now very recently I've come into a modest inheritance – so I have some actual money I need to put into a bank. Now you might think that in the current economic climate any bank would be desperate for any customer with a bit of money. Oh, but you'd be wrong. Very wrong. Because I haven't had a bank account for so long - it turns out I haven't got a credit rating. Big surprise there. But without a credit rating – a bank won't give me an account. Yes, it turns out you pretty much need a bank account to be able to er, open a bank account.... go figure!
Let's let this sink in... I haven't got a credit rating – well, because I haven't had a bank account for a while. So they won't give me a bank account because I haven't got a credit rating... Now I could understand this if I was asking for a mortgage or a loan or even a credit card – but no, all I want is a current account.
OK. So after being given the run-a-round – it turns out there are these super basic bank accounts you can get – they're really there because our government in it's 'wisdom' (*chokes*) has decided to phase out the old Giro cheque you used to be able to cash at a Post Office - so if you're on benefits you get one of these basic accounts and the Government pays the benefits straight into that account. [An aside – it used to be the case that when you signed on – an actual real life physical cheque would be posted to you and reach you 3 days later. But in this fast modern electronic world – where you would think it could reach you – at least the very next day – but no, instead it takes a whole day extra! No, I have no idea why this should be.]
Anyhow – I apply in one of these high street places for their basic account. I take in my proof of ID and utility bills to prove my address – only to be told it takes up to a MONTH to set up the account! Jeez what do they find to do in a whole month? But regardless - I put the paper work in – and the next day knowing I couldn't possibly wait that long went over to another bank – where I was told it would only take 7 to 10 working days. I applied for their basic account. Thinking at the worst having two accounts can't hurt.
Turns out it was just as well I did because to add insult to injury I received a letter today from the first bank saying they were unable to process my application – because I hadn't indicated whether I was a bankrupt or subject to an IVA. (Whatever that is.) Er, but when I handed the form in – it was to a member of staff who checked it over before taking it from me – if there was anything missing on the form – she would have told me there and then. So I believe they are lying – and because they think they're dealing with a unemployed person they don't care if I have an account with them or not (they don't make a profit from these accounts). But they expect me to go in and reapply and wait ANOTHER MONTH for them to get their act together... Er, I don't think I'll be doing that somehow.
Sigh.
And this has been only a part of the hassles I've had trying to open an account – there was another story where a staff member was on holiday for a week – so couldn't see me... and blah blah blah. Oh it's just frustrating to relate - and is all doubt to ass-hat incompetence.
So at the end of the day I am not in the least bit surprised that the banking system is in such a deep,deep crisis – it's obviously run by a bunch of complete brain-dead chimpanzees who couldn't find their own arse with both hands and a map...
Once (maybe that should IF) I ever get access to my own money – I'm not sure I'll want it sitting in a bank account. I might be better off keeping it under the mattress!
digi-wrong wrong wrongs
Filesharing mum ordered to pay nearly $2m
Errrr. What? A $2 million fine? How is this is anywhere close to justice? Was Jammie a music pirate with her own website selling MPGs - or selling CDs earning herself millions and millions of dollars? Was she going around to music artists homes and stealing bags of money off them at gunpoint? Was any money at any time exchanged? So where did this figure come from? What would she have got as a fine if she's shoplifted a few CDs? I doubt it would have been in the millions. She wouldn't have got that for kidnap and murder.
So what message does this send out? 'OOOOoooh we shouldn't ever download music we haven't paid for because the music industry will get us"?
No. It sends the message that the RIAA is out of control (and don't think for a moment that a single artist is going to see a single cent of that money - ever since the RIAA have been suing people - a single penny hasn't gone to any artist. But a big chunk as been going to pay already plump lawyers and into their own pockets... [All of which is a good excuse to not buy CDs from the major labels - since it's obvious they funnel far too much money in order to hire their lawyers to attack music fans rather than -you know, pay artists.])
Nice to see this:
Lawyers plan class-action to reclaim "$100M+" RIAA "stole"
Because the RIAA seriously needs to be held to account.
Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded.
PC World: Has the RIAA's Fight Against File Sharing Gone Too Far?
Errrr. What? A $2 million fine? How is this is anywhere close to justice? Was Jammie a music pirate with her own website selling MPGs - or selling CDs earning herself millions and millions of dollars? Was she going around to music artists homes and stealing bags of money off them at gunpoint? Was any money at any time exchanged? So where did this figure come from? What would she have got as a fine if she's shoplifted a few CDs? I doubt it would have been in the millions. She wouldn't have got that for kidnap and murder.
So what message does this send out? 'OOOOoooh we shouldn't ever download music we haven't paid for because the music industry will get us"?
No. It sends the message that the RIAA is out of control (and don't think for a moment that a single artist is going to see a single cent of that money - ever since the RIAA have been suing people - a single penny hasn't gone to any artist. But a big chunk as been going to pay already plump lawyers and into their own pockets... [All of which is a good excuse to not buy CDs from the major labels - since it's obvious they funnel far too much money in order to hire their lawyers to attack music fans rather than -you know, pay artists.])
Nice to see this:
Lawyers plan class-action to reclaim "$100M+" RIAA "stole"
Because the RIAA seriously needs to be held to account.
Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded.
PC World: Has the RIAA's Fight Against File Sharing Gone Too Far?
one law for the poor - another for the MPs
Mmmmm.
So when some poor sod fiddles the benefit system and they get caught out... they usually get sent to court and are usually either fined and sent to jail. [Leaving aside for the moment other issues that the benefits paid out are often way, way below anything anyone could be expected to even subsist on - which in itself could be said to encourage people to cheat... they do so only to survive.]
But when MPs do it - they first claim they're doing nothing (technically) wrong. Then some quickly pay back what they claimed (surely that in itself is an admission of guilt -hummm?), then they censor what should be a matter of public record - another admission of guilt -surely.
Now the police are getting involved - but what are the chances of any MP being sent to court - and fined - and sent to prison? I'd say minimal - how many Labour party members got away with the cash for peerages thing that was going on not so long ago?
Where are the TV adverts for tax-payer-cheating MPs - like they have for 'targeting benefit thieves'...
So when some poor sod fiddles the benefit system and they get caught out... they usually get sent to court and are usually either fined and sent to jail. [Leaving aside for the moment other issues that the benefits paid out are often way, way below anything anyone could be expected to even subsist on - which in itself could be said to encourage people to cheat... they do so only to survive.]
But when MPs do it - they first claim they're doing nothing (technically) wrong. Then some quickly pay back what they claimed (surely that in itself is an admission of guilt -hummm?), then they censor what should be a matter of public record - another admission of guilt -surely.
Now the police are getting involved - but what are the chances of any MP being sent to court - and fined - and sent to prison? I'd say minimal - how many Labour party members got away with the cash for peerages thing that was going on not so long ago?
Where are the TV adverts for tax-payer-cheating MPs - like they have for 'targeting benefit thieves'...
nebulous coming to teevee?
ooooh ooooh oooooh
just read this on the news section of Graham Duff's own website:
Which is something to look forward to after what might be the last ever episode of Ideal.
just read this on the news section of Graham Duff's own website:
Graham is currently working on a TV adaptation of his popular Radio 4 sci-fi sit-com ‘Nebulous’.
Which is something to look forward to after what might be the last ever episode of Ideal.
speed bumps ahead in superhighway Britain
*shakes head*
Digital Britain: ISPs will have to cut filesharing by 70% under new proposals
Dying dinosaur Government - led around by the nose by a dying dinosaur entertainment industry...
Digital Britain: ISPs will have to cut filesharing by 70% under new proposals
Dying dinosaur Government - led around by the nose by a dying dinosaur entertainment industry...
The 10 Least Necessary Doctor Who Figures
I've got something like four of these:
Topless Robot - The 10 Least Necessary Doctor Who Figures
Topless Robot - The 10 Least Necessary Doctor Who Figures
Why politicans can't ever be trusted
It's late - I'm tired - I haven't read this whole article BUT I've come away with one overwhelming thought... THIS is exactly why the whole country is fucked. Seriously - are these are supposed to be the people we elect to look after 'very important things'? - IE 'how the country is run' and so on, but just look at them - 'secret' webmail accounts - PAYG mobile phones - Jesus, it's so pathetic. It's naughty school children misbehaving in the playground stuff. They've proven themselves time and time again not to be trustworthy in any shape or form - the public have no reason whatsoever to take any of these people seriously.
I can't even begin to express my disgust at the whole bloody lot of them.
Why plot to oust Gordon Brown failed | Politics | The Guardian
I can't even begin to express my disgust at the whole bloody lot of them.
Why plot to oust Gordon Brown failed | Politics | The Guardian
Digital wrongs management
So what's the deal with the entertainment biz? Why are they consistently roughly 10 years behind the times?
and...
Are downloads really killing the music industry? Or is it something else?
I think the the answers partly lie in
1. They generate fantasy figures for themselves based on how much money they think they should be making - probably based on figures they had back in the 80s before the internet and computer games and DVDs and mobile phones, a time when everyone was gradually replacing their libraries of vinyl recording with CDs.
2. Their own greed - how is it the use of computers in any other industry has lead to savings in production? A recording studio used to be a ludicrously expensive thing to rent. But now everyone can get professional results on their laptops. When a track or a album is a download - with no physical CD, no cover, no transportation costs, no shelf space in a shop - why does it still cost the same as buying it on a CD?
and that's just music - I can't even go into TV shows and movies - but I am pissed at ISPs and Govts kowtowing to the Ent Biz and running around making laws and punishing home users on their behalf.
But what's the real effect of DRM? Last year, EMI began offering songs without it on iTunes. "The industry has finally been able to get some hard data about how removing DRM restrictions from legitimately purchased tracks affects piracy," says Bill Rosenplatt, DRM specialist and president of GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies. "The statistics show that there's no effect on piracy."
No effect. The assertion is remarkable. If DRM does not in fact discourage piracy, then it is merely a nuisance for the user.
and...
Are downloads really killing the music industry? Or is it something else?
I think the the answers partly lie in
1. They generate fantasy figures for themselves based on how much money they think they should be making - probably based on figures they had back in the 80s before the internet and computer games and DVDs and mobile phones, a time when everyone was gradually replacing their libraries of vinyl recording with CDs.
2. Their own greed - how is it the use of computers in any other industry has lead to savings in production? A recording studio used to be a ludicrously expensive thing to rent. But now everyone can get professional results on their laptops. When a track or a album is a download - with no physical CD, no cover, no transportation costs, no shelf space in a shop - why does it still cost the same as buying it on a CD?
and that's just music - I can't even go into TV shows and movies - but I am pissed at ISPs and Govts kowtowing to the Ent Biz and running around making laws and punishing home users on their behalf.
digital photography from the 70s
I thought this was interesting - it's screen grab from an episode of 'The Tomorrow People' and this is the character Steve - and he's playing with a compact cassette - which to explain to you youngsters is something we had before mpg players. Which wouldn't be that interesting - except his cassette isn't an plain old ordinary audio cassette - it's a set of photographs... it isn't explained at all in the episode at all but rather than clutching a old fashioned photographic print he's got there what could only be a digital photograph stored on magnetic tape... because floppy discs hadn't even been invented yet... but compact cassettes had. I'm not sure, but this might have even been before they had home computers where software was loaded on from cassette players. How far ahead of it's time was this program?
I still wish I could talk to my computer (mmm, come to think of it - hasn't Vista got that built in? I haven't bothered to try it - because I know I'd only be setting myself up for a massive disappointment.)
sigh - local election time
So I'm watching the various local election results come in on the news... and i'm depressed. Not because Labour is being trounced - since I believe they are only getting everything they deserve. But because this means the Tories are gaining - and that it's looking more and more like a foregone collection that the Tories will get into power at the next general election. It depresses me profoundly that the general public have such short memories - they've now totally forgotten just how wretchedly bad the Tories were when they were last in power. What's worse, no one seems to realise that NuLabour haven't done anything differently from what the Tories would have done the past 12 years. The whole two party political system we have here in the UK is insane and no way to run a country... each party just gets a shot at coming in and wrecking everything in their own way and when they wind down - usually dissolving in disarray and miring themselves in sleaze - then the opposition (who are always great at knowing how to run things and can fix everything when they're not in power - but always suddenly manage to completely lose that ability when they do gain power... funny that) get their turn to fuck everything up in their own way.
Groans.
There has got to be a better way than this.
Why wont people give the Lib-Dems a chance?
Groans.
There has got to be a better way than this.
Why wont people give the Lib-Dems a chance?
Rye
The why of the Rye
Oh look, a BBC magazine piece on the Catcher. By coincidence I just read 'Catcher in the Rye' only a few weeks ago. It was just 50p from a charity shop - so I thought I'd give it a go. Not only that - I was thinking about it again this very morning for some reason. I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't see what the fuss is about. As I was reading it I was thinking- oh well, maybe things were so different all those years back - this was a bit of shocker then. But why it's kept on being a classic over the decades... I just don't get it.
I'd add to their neat little run down of the story that they didn't mention the death of one of Holden's class mates at the hands of bullies - and I got the sense that there was a layer of quiet post-traumatic stress syndrome going on there in among all the self-absorbed narcissistic teenage angst. I read between the lines that Caulfield might have had a nervous breakdown at the end of his New York 'adventures' - and after getting better was off to start at a new college... (I might be wrong. I might have read too much in there. But it makes sense to me - so I'm sticking by it.)
Oh look, a BBC magazine piece on the Catcher. By coincidence I just read 'Catcher in the Rye' only a few weeks ago. It was just 50p from a charity shop - so I thought I'd give it a go. Not only that - I was thinking about it again this very morning for some reason. I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't see what the fuss is about. As I was reading it I was thinking- oh well, maybe things were so different all those years back - this was a bit of shocker then. But why it's kept on being a classic over the decades... I just don't get it.
I'd add to their neat little run down of the story that they didn't mention the death of one of Holden's class mates at the hands of bullies - and I got the sense that there was a layer of quiet post-traumatic stress syndrome going on there in among all the self-absorbed narcissistic teenage angst. I read between the lines that Caulfield might have had a nervous breakdown at the end of his New York 'adventures' - and after getting better was off to start at a new college... (I might be wrong. I might have read too much in there. But it makes sense to me - so I'm sticking by it.)
fantasy world
Apparently according to research commissioned by the 'Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property' (who?) 'free downloads' is costing the British economy billions of pounds a year...
IE I'd imagine a bunch of accountants were locked in room with their laptops and some bottles of wine and told to come up with some figures that this 'Advisory Board' could bandy about - and got paid quite a bit of money for the privilege.
"Ministers privately accept the difficulty attached to criminalising millions of people who now apparently see little wrong with stealing online content."
-They could of course, build more prisons... (what are the numbers of people fined and imprisoned for not having a TV licence these days?) or as is it seems more likely - why not make the whole of the country into a prison island (ID cards, with compulsory records of our DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, Etc. CCTV surveillance, keeping records on everyone's emails, IMs, web browsing history... We're well on our way there now.)
Or how's about trying to find new ways of making money out of creative content that doesn't rely 100% on outdated, last century ideas of counting bums on seats in cinemas, or selling over-priced plastic boxes with silver discs in them?
God help us if they ever bother to factor in the sales of second hand CDs and DVDs... like the financial sector at the moment they might decide everyone owes umpteen times over the GDP of the entire planet...
Cost to British economy of free downloads is revealed | Technology | The Guardian
IE I'd imagine a bunch of accountants were locked in room with their laptops and some bottles of wine and told to come up with some figures that this 'Advisory Board' could bandy about - and got paid quite a bit of money for the privilege.
"Ministers privately accept the difficulty attached to criminalising millions of people who now apparently see little wrong with stealing online content."
-They could of course, build more prisons... (what are the numbers of people fined and imprisoned for not having a TV licence these days?) or as is it seems more likely - why not make the whole of the country into a prison island (ID cards, with compulsory records of our DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, Etc. CCTV surveillance, keeping records on everyone's emails, IMs, web browsing history... We're well on our way there now.)
Or how's about trying to find new ways of making money out of creative content that doesn't rely 100% on outdated, last century ideas of counting bums on seats in cinemas, or selling over-priced plastic boxes with silver discs in them?
God help us if they ever bother to factor in the sales of second hand CDs and DVDs... like the financial sector at the moment they might decide everyone owes umpteen times over the GDP of the entire planet...
Cost to British economy of free downloads is revealed | Technology | The Guardian
Doctor Who: new companion is 'unknown' 21-year old girl
Oh. Hum. Eeeerrrr... Is this turning into 'the Time Lord Babies' show - you know, like the Muppet babies or Puppy Scooby Doo?
I'm trying not to be worried - but I dunno what Stephen Moffat is thinking... is he trying to get down with the kids? Won't he alienate some of the older members of that Saturday night family audience?
Doctor Who: new companion is 'unknown' 21-year-old actress - Telegraph
guardian snippet (with snarky comments)
I'm trying not to be worried - but I dunno what Stephen Moffat is thinking... is he trying to get down with the kids? Won't he alienate some of the older members of that Saturday night family audience?
Doctor Who: new companion is 'unknown' 21-year-old actress - Telegraph
guardian snippet (with snarky comments)
politicians expense claims
This is just jaw-dropping.
A plague on both your houses - Times Online
Of course this is a symptom of the current generation of career politician we've now got. These are people who go straight from school - to university and then into politics. Consequently precious few of them have had much experience of real life - or even held down a real job (some of them might possibly have had a silly part time job during uni. but otherwise they probably interned for their chosen political party) or know much about how normal everyday people live their lives. This is apparent by the utter cluelessness they display when reporters confront them:
See the clip here.
If I was in charge of the country - I'd have all mps put on minimum wage and if they're away from their constituencies for parliamentary business - they'd be halls of residence set up for them - with constant cctv surveillance in what would no doubt prove to be a futile attempt to stop them bonking each other senseless...
Of course what they should do is pay all the money back and give everyone a tax rebate. Don't hold your breath.
A plague on both your houses - Times Online
Of course this is a symptom of the current generation of career politician we've now got. These are people who go straight from school - to university and then into politics. Consequently precious few of them have had much experience of real life - or even held down a real job (some of them might possibly have had a silly part time job during uni. but otherwise they probably interned for their chosen political party) or know much about how normal everyday people live their lives. This is apparent by the utter cluelessness they display when reporters confront them:
ANDREW SINCLAIR: And you would say, you haven’t broken any rules, this is all within the claims policy.
MARGARET MORAN: It is all within the claims policy and that’s why I’m angry about this because not only has it been very stressful for me and my family, it gives the incredibly misleading impression that somehow we’ve been dodgy, that we’ve been fraudulent or we’ve been corrupt. Nothing is further from the truth. As I say, there are – I’ve done everything by the rules. There are inaccuracies, some of which I think are probably actionable and I think that it’s deeply irresponsible and actually the evasion of privacy, not just my privacy but my partner’s privacy, the Daily Telegraph, now have and have circulated to all the media, details of my credit card, my bank statements, my mortgage statements, personal details relating to my partner, which I do not believe any responsible media should be dealing with.
ANDREW SINCLAIR: Some people are going to say you should resign over this.
MARGARET MORAN: Well I, I don’t want to resign. I want to continue to do a good job for my constituents; my Party doesn’t want me to resign. (interjection)
ANDREW SINCLAIR: Have you thought about resigning?
MARGARET MORAN: Well I, no, I haven’t because I haven’t done anything wrong. You know, if you haven’t done anything wrong, what is there to resign for.
See the clip here.
If I was in charge of the country - I'd have all mps put on minimum wage and if they're away from their constituencies for parliamentary business - they'd be halls of residence set up for them - with constant cctv surveillance in what would no doubt prove to be a futile attempt to stop them bonking each other senseless...
Of course what they should do is pay all the money back and give everyone a tax rebate. Don't hold your breath.
Art School Confidential - huh?
I've just watched this movie and am currently in the throes of 'huh? wha?'. So all this is off the top of my head.
I'm confused - I haven't read the comic book - so I can't vouch as to whether it's a good adaptation or not... so I'll have to let that slide. But broadly speaking - you can get away with a lot more in a graphic novel than you can in a movie. (Maybe that's because expectations are a lot lower? I don't know.)
But from a first viewing it seems like what could have been a really nice (all be it somewhat trite and conventional) little 'boy artist meets out-of-his-league pretty girl' romance on top of a snarky little dig at the woefully pretentious art school mores was further ruined by having a murder mystery grafted onto the top of it. Leaving me not knowing what I was watching really - much less as to what it was trying to say. (I feel it could have worked in the hands of a far more accomplished director. But here it all fell apart and became lifeless mush.)
Was it saying:
Everyone is a pretentious fraud apart from the serial killer who made his paintings from his murders? (But all he really did was make a memento of each of his victims - is that art? Do we consider what serial killers -like Dennis Nielsen and Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein did with their victim's remains art? Or even the paintings of clowns by Wayne Gacy? Now, is that art appreciation or just morbid curiosity?)
That the highest accomplishment in modern life is fame even when gained through notoriety? Because that would have been a great sarcastic message - but somehow it just didn't quite work as well as it could have done.
That everyone is clueless?
If you want the girl and to be famous - then claim credit for someone else's work - even if it's homicide? Despite the fact that your own work looks nothing whatsoever like what the murderer produced. (Which should be a big giveaway surely) The problem with that was the lead actor - simply wasn't anywhere near morally ambiguous enough - Max Minghella made an ideal fresh young innocent abroad - but someone who could be mistaken for a serial killer - or even someone warped and complex and manipulative enough to be willingly allow themselves to be imprisoned as such? Oh c'mon. No. That bird wasn't ever going to fly.
The other gripe I have about the film is that the main character's art is just - so tediously bland and conventional - it's illustration not art. (You must remember Clowes for career went into comic books - which is story-telling through a series of images - a different discipline altogether from making a single image which is meant to stand alone and be looked at for a long period of time. And now I think of it - movie making - is that too. So maybe the whole film is about a cartoonist and a movie maker - people who make stories through a succession of images - just totally failing to understand what single image art is really about. Then having an axe to grind in later life about how they were so misunderstood in art school... Hey, I think I might be on to something here...)
Art School Confidential
I'm confused - I haven't read the comic book - so I can't vouch as to whether it's a good adaptation or not... so I'll have to let that slide. But broadly speaking - you can get away with a lot more in a graphic novel than you can in a movie. (Maybe that's because expectations are a lot lower? I don't know.)
But from a first viewing it seems like what could have been a really nice (all be it somewhat trite and conventional) little 'boy artist meets out-of-his-league pretty girl' romance on top of a snarky little dig at the woefully pretentious art school mores was further ruined by having a murder mystery grafted onto the top of it. Leaving me not knowing what I was watching really - much less as to what it was trying to say. (I feel it could have worked in the hands of a far more accomplished director. But here it all fell apart and became lifeless mush.)
Was it saying:
Everyone is a pretentious fraud apart from the serial killer who made his paintings from his murders? (But all he really did was make a memento of each of his victims - is that art? Do we consider what serial killers -like Dennis Nielsen and Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein did with their victim's remains art? Or even the paintings of clowns by Wayne Gacy? Now, is that art appreciation or just morbid curiosity?)
That the highest accomplishment in modern life is fame even when gained through notoriety? Because that would have been a great sarcastic message - but somehow it just didn't quite work as well as it could have done.
That everyone is clueless?
If you want the girl and to be famous - then claim credit for someone else's work - even if it's homicide? Despite the fact that your own work looks nothing whatsoever like what the murderer produced. (Which should be a big giveaway surely) The problem with that was the lead actor - simply wasn't anywhere near morally ambiguous enough - Max Minghella made an ideal fresh young innocent abroad - but someone who could be mistaken for a serial killer - or even someone warped and complex and manipulative enough to be willingly allow themselves to be imprisoned as such? Oh c'mon. No. That bird wasn't ever going to fly.
The other gripe I have about the film is that the main character's art is just - so tediously bland and conventional - it's illustration not art. (You must remember Clowes for career went into comic books - which is story-telling through a series of images - a different discipline altogether from making a single image which is meant to stand alone and be looked at for a long period of time. And now I think of it - movie making - is that too. So maybe the whole film is about a cartoonist and a movie maker - people who make stories through a succession of images - just totally failing to understand what single image art is really about. Then having an axe to grind in later life about how they were so misunderstood in art school... Hey, I think I might be on to something here...)
Art School Confidential
Gordon and Sarah Brown at Auschwitz
Sarah: "So first we start by making everyone have voluntary ID cards?"
Gordon: "Then we make them compulsory... like Germany did in 1939"
Sarah: "Then we start building huge work camps?"
Gordon: "We'll claim it'll be to help the long term unemployed..."
[well - I can't help but think ol' Gordon has been taking away all the wrong ideas away from history recently. Like his full support of the Thatcherite/Reagan brand of laissez-faire capitalism - the last time that was tried in the 20s/30s - mmmm how'd that one end again?]
Gordon: "Then we make them compulsory... like Germany did in 1939"
Sarah: "Then we start building huge work camps?"
Gordon: "We'll claim it'll be to help the long term unemployed..."
[well - I can't help but think ol' Gordon has been taking away all the wrong ideas away from history recently. Like his full support of the Thatcherite/Reagan brand of laissez-faire capitalism - the last time that was tried in the 20s/30s - mmmm how'd that one end again?]
Manchester 'launch' for ID cards
"'ID cards will deliver real benefits to everyone, including increased protection against criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists,' the home secretary will say."
And will they go on to specify how exactly this magic ID card will do that? Unless people are totally scrupulously honest and tick the 'I am a terrorist/criminal/illegal immigrant' box when they voluntarily turn up to get a card? Only to be taken off by the police as they try to leave the building?
BBC NEWS | Politics | Manchester 'launch' for ID cards
And will they go on to specify how exactly this magic ID card will do that? Unless people are totally scrupulously honest and tick the 'I am a terrorist/criminal/illegal immigrant' box when they voluntarily turn up to get a card? Only to be taken off by the police as they try to leave the building?
BBC NEWS | Politics | Manchester 'launch' for ID cards
Time to bail out of Britain? - Telegraph
Oh dear - here's the Telegraph being a bit retarded again. Incase nobody has noticed -the fact is most of the highest earners (and corporations) in the UK haven't been paying much in the way of taxes for a very long time now. Can't see that changing any time soon - because where else are the main political parties going to get their campaign fund donations for the next election from? They're NEVER going to bite the hand that feeds them are they now? (- and don't for one minute think that they think it's the taxpayer that pays them - to them that wage is just a pittance). Moreover - isn't it the case that a lot of these high earners are the very same greedy idiots who've brought about the whole global financial meltdown in the first place? So wouldn't we all be a better off if they did scram out of the country - and go off and ruin somewhere else for a change?
Mind you I'd love to go and live abroad somewhere else for a bit.
Time to bail out of Britain? - Telegraph
Mind you I'd love to go and live abroad somewhere else for a bit.
Time to bail out of Britain? - Telegraph
Rumour: Gillian Anderson to appear in Dr Who?
That rings a bell... Where have I come across this idea before?
Oh yes...
Oh yes...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)