Seeing as I _did_ say I'd make another video an' all, I thought I should share it. Kind forgot t'mention it or something. Or possibly couldn't be bothered posting it here knowing no-one ever reads this crap. I dunno.
Anyway, here it is. ANd a vast improvement on the last one. Enjoy.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Aparently music videos are harder to make than I thought.
For some reason I decided to have a try at ripping scenes from a DVD, compiling them together and adding music. Here's how it turned out.
As y'cn see, it's a bloody failure. Naturally I have to adress those failures.
For a start, the picture isn't in synch with the music for most of it. That's due mainly to the afghanistan bit lasting too long, throwing bits out of place. At least some of it worked. Then there's the fact that my attempts at lip-synching failed. Well it's live action. Should never've tried that. Ignore it. I also got a bit lazy near the end, didn't use the scenes I wanted to, forgot how some went and thus got the wrong bits in parts and so on and so forth. Maybe at some point I'll redo it properly. I think at the end I just grabbed anything as well. That's really unforgivable.
Obviously my next video will be an AMV, I'll use some decent software and I'll actually plan it properly rather than just in my head. Hmm.
As y'cn see, it's a bloody failure. Naturally I have to adress those failures.
For a start, the picture isn't in synch with the music for most of it. That's due mainly to the afghanistan bit lasting too long, throwing bits out of place. At least some of it worked. Then there's the fact that my attempts at lip-synching failed. Well it's live action. Should never've tried that. Ignore it. I also got a bit lazy near the end, didn't use the scenes I wanted to, forgot how some went and thus got the wrong bits in parts and so on and so forth. Maybe at some point I'll redo it properly. I think at the end I just grabbed anything as well. That's really unforgivable.
Obviously my next video will be an AMV, I'll use some decent software and I'll actually plan it properly rather than just in my head. Hmm.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Some facts about Santa
And now for the traditional yearly debunking of the santa myth. Y've probably seen et before, but still...
What a kill-joy I am.
SOME FACTS ABOUT SANTA CLAUS
1) No known species of reindeer can fly. But there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not completely rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.
2) There are 2 billion children in the world (persons under 18). But since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist children, that reduces the workload by 85% of the total - leaving 378 million according to the Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there is at least one good child per house.
3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stocking, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household, a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding, etc. That means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, at tops 25-30 miles per hour.
4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming each child gets nothing more then a medium sized LEGO set (2 lbs), the sleigh is carrying 321300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting the 'flying reindeer' can pull TEN TIMES that normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine - we need 214200 reindeer. This increased the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh to 353430 tons. Again for comparison, this is four timed the weight of the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
5) 353000 tons travelling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance. This will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy per second, each. In short, they will burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and creating a deafening sonic boom in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa meanwhile, will be subject to centrifugal forces of 17500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250 lb Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by a 4,315,015 pound force. In conclusion, if Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas eve, he's now dead.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Aparently being offensive is a bad thing
Ponder this. Is it acceptable to make offensive and inflamatory comments? At all? Aimed at anyone you like? is it unnaceptable? Should it be ilegal? Think carefully.
So anyway, the government are now telling us that insulting anybody at all in the privacy of your own meeting-place should be made a criminal offense. Yah. The reason? Some BNP leaders got cleared of incitement of hatred. Well of course they did! I mean, all they said was that Islam is evil, or words to that effect. It's not like they actually encouraged members to go out and kill all the muslims or anything. 'least not on this occasion, and the joy of the court system is that your past actions must not be taken into account. Yessss.
Anyway, it raises questions. I mean, if we're not allowed to say anything bad about a belief system because it might offend folk, we're basically losing civil rights. There's a reason that I'm more than happy to sonstantly make posts that could be reas as an attack on [insert group here], and that's becasue of freedom of speech. The fact that I accept they have the right to make comments about my beliefs. And that's important.
Of course, if the government get their way that won't be allowed. Great shame.
Of course, this is nothing new. Anyone remember the Mohammed cartoons? Well for anyone that doesn't, they were basically some harmless pictures of the prophet Mohammed. Onl;y really offensive one had a bomb on his turban, which was actually pretty clever. It's asking the question of whether muslims are terrorists, or wether terrorists use Islam as an excuse, evidently. Or maybe it was jsut designed to be inflamatory. Regardless, there was some slight overkill in the reaction from the Islamic community. And we're talking bombings of Danish embassys, death-threats to all who published the things, national newspapers refusing to make copies in case someone killed them (even private eye settled for just descriptions. Ridiculous.) So obviously I'm going to resist the temptation to post one here as an example. It'd just get pulled, anyway. Instead, here's a slightly less offensive cartoon that was published shortly after. gives a good idea of the problem, methinks.
So anyway. What's really happening now is taking it one step further: lets throw the danish cartoonist in prison becasue it happens to offend some overly-sensitive religeous types. I mean, really. Ever seen the pope urging the RC church to go murder TV comedians? Concidering there seems to be an insult hurled at Christianity on more or less every TV show these days you can't really argue he's not more justified than the folk upset over a few cartoons, surely? Hmm. Not seen the Dalai Llama launching a crusade against the Chinese lately, either. Well, well, well. Don't see Richard Dawkings being beheaded either.
So let me get this straight. There's only one major religeon likely to react to offensive comments, and thus we're going to throw folk in gaol for expressing opinions against religeous groups? I remind you that religeon is a choice. Nobody's forcing you to follow a certain belief system. It's not something that you're born into and stuck with through life, in the manner of, say, race. Racial hatred, now that's bad. That should be punishable. By all means, lock the BNP leaders up for life with their nazi-loving white-supremacy movement. But insulting a group that people choose to belong to? The BNP as champions of free speech. Not gonna see that happen very often.
Oh, what the hell. Here's a picture of Mohammed.
So anyway, the government are now telling us that insulting anybody at all in the privacy of your own meeting-place should be made a criminal offense. Yah. The reason? Some BNP leaders got cleared of incitement of hatred. Well of course they did! I mean, all they said was that Islam is evil, or words to that effect. It's not like they actually encouraged members to go out and kill all the muslims or anything. 'least not on this occasion, and the joy of the court system is that your past actions must not be taken into account. Yessss.
Anyway, it raises questions. I mean, if we're not allowed to say anything bad about a belief system because it might offend folk, we're basically losing civil rights. There's a reason that I'm more than happy to sonstantly make posts that could be reas as an attack on [insert group here], and that's becasue of freedom of speech. The fact that I accept they have the right to make comments about my beliefs. And that's important.
Of course, if the government get their way that won't be allowed. Great shame.
Of course, this is nothing new. Anyone remember the Mohammed cartoons? Well for anyone that doesn't, they were basically some harmless pictures of the prophet Mohammed. Onl;y really offensive one had a bomb on his turban, which was actually pretty clever. It's asking the question of whether muslims are terrorists, or wether terrorists use Islam as an excuse, evidently. Or maybe it was jsut designed to be inflamatory. Regardless, there was some slight overkill in the reaction from the Islamic community. And we're talking bombings of Danish embassys, death-threats to all who published the things, national newspapers refusing to make copies in case someone killed them (even private eye settled for just descriptions. Ridiculous.) So obviously I'm going to resist the temptation to post one here as an example. It'd just get pulled, anyway. Instead, here's a slightly less offensive cartoon that was published shortly after. gives a good idea of the problem, methinks.
So anyway. What's really happening now is taking it one step further: lets throw the danish cartoonist in prison becasue it happens to offend some overly-sensitive religeous types. I mean, really. Ever seen the pope urging the RC church to go murder TV comedians? Concidering there seems to be an insult hurled at Christianity on more or less every TV show these days you can't really argue he's not more justified than the folk upset over a few cartoons, surely? Hmm. Not seen the Dalai Llama launching a crusade against the Chinese lately, either. Well, well, well. Don't see Richard Dawkings being beheaded either.
So let me get this straight. There's only one major religeon likely to react to offensive comments, and thus we're going to throw folk in gaol for expressing opinions against religeous groups? I remind you that religeon is a choice. Nobody's forcing you to follow a certain belief system. It's not something that you're born into and stuck with through life, in the manner of, say, race. Racial hatred, now that's bad. That should be punishable. By all means, lock the BNP leaders up for life with their nazi-loving white-supremacy movement. But insulting a group that people choose to belong to? The BNP as champions of free speech. Not gonna see that happen very often.
Oh, what the hell. Here's a picture of Mohammed.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Now I'm just being silly
So, the SNP say they're going to win a majority in the next election, will hold a referendum and thus wind up with an independant scotland. To be honest, I don't think it'll happen. I wouldn't expect the SNP to win, I wouldn't expect a referendum to give us such crap and I woldn't expect to see independance (can the executive even do that? Pretty sure only Westminister can go in for that BS, but regardless...)
However, in a worst-case scenario I suppose I should actually consider the possibility. Apart from anything else, we all know I'd rather leave Britan entirely than stay in a ridiculously liberal hell-hole. And I'd imagine an independant scotland would probably wind up with disestablshment of the church, proportional representation and more poltitical correctness than y'cn shake a stick at. Not to mention I'd need a passport to visit friends and relatives in England. Mad.
So, pros and cons
Con
The afformentioned passport rubbish
Liberalism. Everything I love and respect about Britain, gone.
Note the geographical location of Scotland? We're talking about having a tiny independant country smaller than Yorkshire with parts of the UK on either side. And if size = country, why not make Yorkshire and Lancashire independant as well? In fact why not split the UK into lots of countrys? Aside from teh obvious.
I'm a patriotic brit. I see myslef as British first, Scottish second, and my family's english on my father's side. I see the possibility of racism.
pro
Well, I doubt the muslim council of Britain would have such an easy time affecting a Scotland. I suppsoe anything that slows the gradual takeover of Britain by Islam has to be a bonus...
Actually, I can't think of any others.
So in short, I'm a ridiculously old-fasione, conservative racist. Well there's a slap in the face.
In other news, the government plans on forcing through reforms to the Lords using the parliament act. Which means the hereditary lords get banished, a lot of the life lords get forced to retire and a large sum of the hosue gets elected in. Uhu. Bye bye traditional British politics.
Let's look at the prupose of the Lords: they're there to stop the government coming up with ridiculously damaging legislation. They helped to slow down tahtcher's rain of terror you know. They serve an important purpose, and their not being elected is an important part of that. It's one of the reasons it works. An elected house of lords would, basically, result in more-or-less a second house of commons. Hell, calling them lords'd be a bit stupid, wouldn't it? They wouldn't be lords. They'd just be talking heads. It's cause anarchy. It'd never work. Just like proportional representation slows the democratic process, so would this bullshit. Bloody fools.
I've changed my mind. Independance has it's advantages. Speeds my escape, and there's no comments of "we were better of with britain", becasue britain'll be a shit-hole by the time mr Blair's finished with it.
However, in a worst-case scenario I suppose I should actually consider the possibility. Apart from anything else, we all know I'd rather leave Britan entirely than stay in a ridiculously liberal hell-hole. And I'd imagine an independant scotland would probably wind up with disestablshment of the church, proportional representation and more poltitical correctness than y'cn shake a stick at. Not to mention I'd need a passport to visit friends and relatives in England. Mad.
So, pros and cons
Con
The afformentioned passport rubbish
Liberalism. Everything I love and respect about Britain, gone.
Note the geographical location of Scotland? We're talking about having a tiny independant country smaller than Yorkshire with parts of the UK on either side. And if size = country, why not make Yorkshire and Lancashire independant as well? In fact why not split the UK into lots of countrys? Aside from teh obvious.
I'm a patriotic brit. I see myslef as British first, Scottish second, and my family's english on my father's side. I see the possibility of racism.
pro
Well, I doubt the muslim council of Britain would have such an easy time affecting a Scotland. I suppsoe anything that slows the gradual takeover of Britain by Islam has to be a bonus...
Actually, I can't think of any others.
So in short, I'm a ridiculously old-fasione, conservative racist. Well there's a slap in the face.
In other news, the government plans on forcing through reforms to the Lords using the parliament act. Which means the hereditary lords get banished, a lot of the life lords get forced to retire and a large sum of the hosue gets elected in. Uhu. Bye bye traditional British politics.
Let's look at the prupose of the Lords: they're there to stop the government coming up with ridiculously damaging legislation. They helped to slow down tahtcher's rain of terror you know. They serve an important purpose, and their not being elected is an important part of that. It's one of the reasons it works. An elected house of lords would, basically, result in more-or-less a second house of commons. Hell, calling them lords'd be a bit stupid, wouldn't it? They wouldn't be lords. They'd just be talking heads. It's cause anarchy. It'd never work. Just like proportional representation slows the democratic process, so would this bullshit. Bloody fools.
I've changed my mind. Independance has it's advantages. Speeds my escape, and there's no comments of "we were better of with britain", becasue britain'll be a shit-hole by the time mr Blair's finished with it.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Motivational Posters
Ok, so I have too much time on my hands. Anyway, for some obscure reason I decided to make some Paranoia themed motivational psoters.Y'know, just some basic stuff. One or two of 'em are a bit funny, most are naff. I dunno, maybe someone'll like them and it seems a waste not to share them. So without further ado...
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Well, darn
And why have I not been online all week? Becasue my motherboard broke. Capacitors popped and it died. On monday. Just got the whole thing replaced. I'd go into more detail, but I have a headache due to withdrawl symptoms.
Yes! Internet withdrawl symptoms! I truly am addicted!
Oh, and Defcon first impressions (only a week late, too!): Not bad really. The AI's evil htough. And I've not been able to try mplayer yet becasue the only servers that would show up on the lsit were called "new server" and were the property of demo users who were trying to play solo and failing. ARGH.
Yes! Internet withdrawl symptoms! I truly am addicted!
Oh, and Defcon first impressions (only a week late, too!): Not bad really. The AI's evil htough. And I've not been able to try mplayer yet becasue the only servers that would show up on the lsit were called "new server" and were the property of demo users who were trying to play solo and failing. ARGH.
Well, darn
And why have I not been online all week? Becasue my motherboard broke. Capacitors popped and it died. On monday. Just got the whole thing replaced. I'd go into more detail, but I have a headache due to withdrawl symptoms.
Yes! Internet withdrawl symptoms! I truly am addicted!
Oh, and Defcon first impressions (only a week late, too!): Not bad really. The AI's evil htough. And I've not been able to try mplayer yet becasue the only servers that would show up on the lsit were called "new server" and were the property of demo users who were trying to play solo and failing. ARGH.
Yes! Internet withdrawl symptoms! I truly am addicted!
Oh, and Defcon first impressions (only a week late, too!): Not bad really. The AI's evil htough. And I've not been able to try mplayer yet becasue the only servers that would show up on the lsit were called "new server" and were the property of demo users who were trying to play solo and failing. ARGH.
Friday, September 29, 2006
I'm rather annoyed, by golly.
Remember I mentioned my POS PC? Yeah. Keeps resetting itself. Can't play Defcon until I get a new PC or convince a friend to let me use theirs. Damn, eh? Although installing it onto my zip drive does have a rather perverse appeal, I must say...
Anyway, unless I can get it working, put me down as horribly angry and be glad I'm sticking to my no-cusswords policy.
Anyway, unless I can get it working, put me down as horribly angry and be glad I'm sticking to my no-cusswords policy.
And on that note
2:16 until demo downloads, I've nearly finished listening to all the songs Tom Lehrer released on the subject of nuclear holocaust (halfway through we shall all go together when we go right now) and I've got me cd key sat here ready to copy into the game. Assuming I can get the damned thing ot run on this POS desktop, expect a review sometime tommorow.
And if not, I'll rant about the horrible injuries I'm no doubt going to have gained after the three-hour paintball session I'm booked in for in the morning.
And the download's finished. Time to nuke the US back to the stone-age.
And if not, I'll rant about the horrible injuries I'm no doubt going to have gained after the three-hour paintball session I'm booked in for in the morning.
And the download's finished. Time to nuke the US back to the stone-age.
STOP PRESS
No sooner have I clicked submit on my previous post, than my cd key arrives. Sent out at 1918 GMT, approximately one hour and eighteen minutes late. Yes.
Unfortunately everybody-dies.com is still down. So I continue getting the demo from fileshack.
Unfortunately everybody-dies.com is still down. So I continue getting the demo from fileshack.
And an update
There's a demo available. I'm currently downlaoding it, and it allows 2-player games. Which is better than nowt.
So, that's how they worked it out. Pretty smart idea really: you get it in demo form and use your cd key to unlock it. The problem? Seems they haven't yet sent out the cd keys yet. Certainly I can't find anyone that's recieved the damned thing. Still, I'm sure it'll sort itself.
I'd also like to draw another comparison to id software: they tried doing that with quake. First episode shareware, enter registration to get the rest. The result, unfortunately, was that people hacked the game and id lost a lot of cash. Especially after having given the discs away free in their shareware form. Ooh dear. Of course, I'm sure Introversion have a way to avoid that in this day and age. Online verification or something. With a game designed for multiplayer, that would of course be fatal.
So, that's how they worked it out. Pretty smart idea really: you get it in demo form and use your cd key to unlock it. The problem? Seems they haven't yet sent out the cd keys yet. Certainly I can't find anyone that's recieved the damned thing. Still, I'm sure it'll sort itself.
I'd also like to draw another comparison to id software: they tried doing that with quake. First episode shareware, enter registration to get the rest. The result, unfortunately, was that people hacked the game and id lost a lot of cash. Especially after having given the discs away free in their shareware form. Ooh dear. Of course, I'm sure Introversion have a way to avoid that in this day and age. Online verification or something. With a game designed for multiplayer, that would of course be fatal.
Everybody dies
Well, Defcon is gonna be released in approximately 34 minutes from when I satrted typing this entry. As it satnds right now, it looks like so: the Introversion online store is down.
So, we get cd keys and then hopefully we can download. How is another matter. As it stands, someone over at PLN suggested p2p software, which I'm guessing is a possibility. I'm also kinda banking on a large number of mirrors popping up, although I don't really see that being feasible to be totally honest.
Funny really. this actually reminds me a bit of the Doom release back in December 93. Sorta. It got uplaoded to a filespace ready for distribution. There were 151 users allowed on the filespace, and 151 connected with the rather brilliant result that id couldn't connect. When they eventually did, and uplaoded it, so many gamers connected and downlaoded they crashed the server. Brilliant. Now, i aint saying that's what'll happen here by any means but it'd be pretty damned impressive if it did.
Makes you wonder really. Digital distribution's been around for years. Almost 13 years ago it was problematic, and today it still is. This is gonna be something special. Only question right now that I can see is how are they gonna handle it? Because evidently just making it direct download from the online store aint gonna work, as we've already seen. Maybe they'll email us a downlad url with the cd key or something, who knows?
And of course I'll be sure to make some sort of cynical comment if it isn't the msot revolutionary, mind-blowing idea ever. Like launching us all our own personal copy attached to a disarmed nuclear missile, say!
Due to unprecedented demand on our store web server. Unfortunately this has overloaded the system, so we have temporarily disabled the store.
DEFCON Keys will be emailed to you at 18:00 GMT which is 19:00 BST in London, UK.
We will be re-enabling the store shortly.
So, we get cd keys and then hopefully we can download. How is another matter. As it stands, someone over at PLN suggested p2p software, which I'm guessing is a possibility. I'm also kinda banking on a large number of mirrors popping up, although I don't really see that being feasible to be totally honest.
Funny really. this actually reminds me a bit of the Doom release back in December 93. Sorta. It got uplaoded to a filespace ready for distribution. There were 151 users allowed on the filespace, and 151 connected with the rather brilliant result that id couldn't connect. When they eventually did, and uplaoded it, so many gamers connected and downlaoded they crashed the server. Brilliant. Now, i aint saying that's what'll happen here by any means but it'd be pretty damned impressive if it did.
Makes you wonder really. Digital distribution's been around for years. Almost 13 years ago it was problematic, and today it still is. This is gonna be something special. Only question right now that I can see is how are they gonna handle it? Because evidently just making it direct download from the online store aint gonna work, as we've already seen. Maybe they'll email us a downlad url with the cd key or something, who knows?
And of course I'll be sure to make some sort of cynical comment if it isn't the msot revolutionary, mind-blowing idea ever. Like launching us all our own personal copy attached to a disarmed nuclear missile, say!
The conversations I have on MSN
Just thought I'd share this one. Too funny for words.
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:25):
and by the way in 5 years time most mobile phones that will be on sale will be running dum de dum Linux
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:25):
altough
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:25):
the mobile companies will lock it down and shit
Aratos says (17:25):
uhu
Aratos says (17:25):
sure they will
Aratos says (17:25):
and I'll stand outside PCWorld every christmas handing out graphics cards to little children
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:26):
what you on about now?
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:26):
Windows is only so popular, because of morons like you
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:25):
and by the way in 5 years time most mobile phones that will be on sale will be running dum de dum Linux
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:25):
altough
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:25):
the mobile companies will lock it down and shit
Aratos says (17:25):
uhu
Aratos says (17:25):
sure they will
Aratos says (17:25):
and I'll stand outside PCWorld every christmas handing out graphics cards to little children
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:26):
what you on about now?
Seb DA MAN? - Nearly ready to format and reinstall Ubuntu - I am looking forward to trying the Suse Live DVD says (17:26):
Windows is only so popular, because of morons like you
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
I should really go into politics
So, mr Blair just made his last ever Labour Conference speech. Which is actually kinda difficult to believe, hmm?
Anyway, I was thinking whilst watching said speech on the TV. And I thought of two things in particular. The first was "they'll have a hard time winning future elections without him", mainly because I once again noticed that, regardless of what else you might think about him, he's a bloomin' good public speaker and Gordon Brown isn't. Neither be anyone else likely to take over. My second thought was "That Joh Prescott's a scary fellow, aint he?" And then I realised: that's it! Labour can win at the next election by using Prescott as a figurehead. I mean, think about it. The use of force could be vital. Take this little image I whipped up for instance: will you deny that seeing it above a polling station entrace would affect your choice of candidate?
Didn't think so. It'd scare the life out of anyone concidering voting tory or lib dem. Of course we need to go further than that to really make use of his talents. I suggest placing him in the home office, as some sort of minister of keeping the peace. Imagine it now: "Prescott is watching you!" I was gonna assemble some posters, but I can't get the right picture just now. Maybe later...
Anyway, I was thinking whilst watching said speech on the TV. And I thought of two things in particular. The first was "they'll have a hard time winning future elections without him", mainly because I once again noticed that, regardless of what else you might think about him, he's a bloomin' good public speaker and Gordon Brown isn't. Neither be anyone else likely to take over. My second thought was "That Joh Prescott's a scary fellow, aint he?" And then I realised: that's it! Labour can win at the next election by using Prescott as a figurehead. I mean, think about it. The use of force could be vital. Take this little image I whipped up for instance: will you deny that seeing it above a polling station entrace would affect your choice of candidate?
Didn't think so. It'd scare the life out of anyone concidering voting tory or lib dem. Of course we need to go further than that to really make use of his talents. I suggest placing him in the home office, as some sort of minister of keeping the peace. Imagine it now: "Prescott is watching you!" I was gonna assemble some posters, but I can't get the right picture just now. Maybe later...
Friday, September 22, 2006
This entry will offend you. I don't care.
Ok. This is complicated.
Firstly I want to make one thing clear: I am not a racist. Not in any way, shape or form. I judge people completely on how they act, and even then... It's complicated. Leave it at that.I'
Anyway, I'm, ah, gonna be commenting on some pretty sensitive issues here, so if anyone takes offense I apologise. I'm not even sure this is really my view, so much as just some thoughts. Yeah.
As you're no doubt aware, pope benedict the umpteenth or whatever his name is recently made a speech which was, shall we say, a tad controversial. What his holiness was saying was that religeon should not be used as an excuse for violence, and he attempted to challenge people of all religeons to consider that, although his message was aimed primarily at muslims. Naturally a quote he made was taken completely out of context and thousands of muslims complained about his spreading religeous hatred whilst burning him in effigy. I'm sure the irony was not lost on most folk.
Anyway, it seems, from what I can gather, that the main problem here is a simple one. Islam isn't just a religeon- it's a nation. A community. In effect, if you make a comment about islam you insult them all. The muslim council of Britain makes it quite clear. In fact they've stated numerous times that they want to have islamic laws integrated into the british law. To turn Britain into a more islamic state. And that, to me anyway, is the problem. That's why British muslims are having such problems fitting in.
See, in some countries *coughcoughamericacoughcough* immigrants are citizens. The "melting pot" philosophy. You go to America, you're an American and it's a source of celebration. In Britainn it's not like that. Same as most of Europe in fact. We don't like immigrants. They're not part of our culture, and until they integrate they won't be. French culture has no religeon, thus they have such joys as banning religous icons and clothing in the workplace. Which is a far law, French culture being what it is. Those who don't agree with it don't have to be there, non? Well that's the theory anyway. Britain's similar. Unlike France, though, we're not an athiestic culture per say. British laws are based originally on christian teaching. Each country in Britain has an official church (the churches of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland all have slightly different philosophies, admitably. The COS is calvinist, the others are episcipaleon(SP), but that's a minor detail. The Queen, the offical British head of state (as well as the head of state in Australia, Canada and the rest of the commonwealth iirc) is also the head of the Church of England. Part of the main result of that is that in britain we expect certain civil liberties. A certain way of doing things. Admitably many British people nowadays are athiests, but the church is still a part of the political process (there're church representatives in the house of lords, you know). Islam doesn't want to integrate, and that's what causes problems. The nation of Islam is seperate from britain, and thus from British culture. They want Britain to change to suit them.
There's also the little fact of politics. It seems that a large majority of muslims, british and otherwise, see the war in iraq as an attack on Islam. Same as insulting an islamic country is an insult to islam. That's a big problem. If someone attacks a christian, buddhist, hindu, jewish or siekh country, the people following that religeon won't take it as an attack on their religeon. Unless it is. If you make a comment against a religeon, or draw an insulting cartoon, it's freedom of speech. It's not an attack that demands an apology (on contraire, open any newspaper and you're likely to find a columnist insulting someone or other.) It's funny really.
Those of you who read this one on my tokyopop blog will notice this bit wasn't there. Well I did say I'd extend it. So here's the thing, and I understand this could be seen as a tad offensive, but here goes.
I think Islam as a religeon feels threatened. One of the main goals of Islam is to spread itself, force other people to follow their laws. Laws which, by the way, state that anyone who isn't a muslim and won't convert should be treated pretty badly. Christians and Jews in particular, although they at least get to be classed as citizens if they pay a ridiculous tax and acknowledge islam to be a superior religeon. And get marked as christians/jews.
Now there's an idea! Make people where identification so you know what religeon they are! Christians could have a cross, and Jews a star and... wait, that sounds somehow familiar.
Now here's the "feels threatened" part. If you say or do anything that is somehow percieved as a threat, they demand you be dealt with. According to Islamic law, natch. They wanted to kill those cartoonists, you know. The pope had to apologise, although admitably it wasn't what they wanted. He apologised for causing offense, but not for what he said. Which is surely all that was neccesary.
Acording to the president of Iran, and islamic, the holocaust did not happen. According to a gallery exhibit currently running in Iran, aaprently the jews are monsters, devil, hung-up over their holocaust whilst committing worse atrocities on muslims and more. It goes on. As it stands I can't find any of that artwork online. I guess no-one wants to make it available on english-language websites. I, ah probably wouldn't have stuck any up anyway. I'd rather keep this blog from containing voerly-racist content. Reagrdless, anyone spot the hypocrisy here? So, if you draw cartoons of mohammed you're an evil heretic and must die. But it's perfectly fine to draw horrendously racist and insulting pictures about jews? Why so defensive, guys? Why so anti everyone elses religeon? Is there something we should know?
How glad I am Islam only allows violence in self defense.
Incidently, I hear mohammeds sword can be seen in a museum in some arab country or other. In the interests of seeing such relics from all peaceful religeons, anyone know where I can go to see christ, buddha or guru nanek's sword?
Firstly I want to make one thing clear: I am not a racist. Not in any way, shape or form. I judge people completely on how they act, and even then... It's complicated. Leave it at that.I'
Anyway, I'm, ah, gonna be commenting on some pretty sensitive issues here, so if anyone takes offense I apologise. I'm not even sure this is really my view, so much as just some thoughts. Yeah.
As you're no doubt aware, pope benedict the umpteenth or whatever his name is recently made a speech which was, shall we say, a tad controversial. What his holiness was saying was that religeon should not be used as an excuse for violence, and he attempted to challenge people of all religeons to consider that, although his message was aimed primarily at muslims. Naturally a quote he made was taken completely out of context and thousands of muslims complained about his spreading religeous hatred whilst burning him in effigy. I'm sure the irony was not lost on most folk.
Anyway, it seems, from what I can gather, that the main problem here is a simple one. Islam isn't just a religeon- it's a nation. A community. In effect, if you make a comment about islam you insult them all. The muslim council of Britain makes it quite clear. In fact they've stated numerous times that they want to have islamic laws integrated into the british law. To turn Britain into a more islamic state. And that, to me anyway, is the problem. That's why British muslims are having such problems fitting in.
See, in some countries *coughcoughamericacoughcough* immigrants are citizens. The "melting pot" philosophy. You go to America, you're an American and it's a source of celebration. In Britainn it's not like that. Same as most of Europe in fact. We don't like immigrants. They're not part of our culture, and until they integrate they won't be. French culture has no religeon, thus they have such joys as banning religous icons and clothing in the workplace. Which is a far law, French culture being what it is. Those who don't agree with it don't have to be there, non? Well that's the theory anyway. Britain's similar. Unlike France, though, we're not an athiestic culture per say. British laws are based originally on christian teaching. Each country in Britain has an official church (the churches of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland all have slightly different philosophies, admitably. The COS is calvinist, the others are episcipaleon(SP), but that's a minor detail. The Queen, the offical British head of state (as well as the head of state in Australia, Canada and the rest of the commonwealth iirc) is also the head of the Church of England. Part of the main result of that is that in britain we expect certain civil liberties. A certain way of doing things. Admitably many British people nowadays are athiests, but the church is still a part of the political process (there're church representatives in the house of lords, you know). Islam doesn't want to integrate, and that's what causes problems. The nation of Islam is seperate from britain, and thus from British culture. They want Britain to change to suit them.
There's also the little fact of politics. It seems that a large majority of muslims, british and otherwise, see the war in iraq as an attack on Islam. Same as insulting an islamic country is an insult to islam. That's a big problem. If someone attacks a christian, buddhist, hindu, jewish or siekh country, the people following that religeon won't take it as an attack on their religeon. Unless it is. If you make a comment against a religeon, or draw an insulting cartoon, it's freedom of speech. It's not an attack that demands an apology (on contraire, open any newspaper and you're likely to find a columnist insulting someone or other.) It's funny really.
Those of you who read this one on my tokyopop blog will notice this bit wasn't there. Well I did say I'd extend it. So here's the thing, and I understand this could be seen as a tad offensive, but here goes.
I think Islam as a religeon feels threatened. One of the main goals of Islam is to spread itself, force other people to follow their laws. Laws which, by the way, state that anyone who isn't a muslim and won't convert should be treated pretty badly. Christians and Jews in particular, although they at least get to be classed as citizens if they pay a ridiculous tax and acknowledge islam to be a superior religeon. And get marked as christians/jews.
Now there's an idea! Make people where identification so you know what religeon they are! Christians could have a cross, and Jews a star and... wait, that sounds somehow familiar.
Now here's the "feels threatened" part. If you say or do anything that is somehow percieved as a threat, they demand you be dealt with. According to Islamic law, natch. They wanted to kill those cartoonists, you know. The pope had to apologise, although admitably it wasn't what they wanted. He apologised for causing offense, but not for what he said. Which is surely all that was neccesary.
Acording to the president of Iran, and islamic, the holocaust did not happen. According to a gallery exhibit currently running in Iran, aaprently the jews are monsters, devil, hung-up over their holocaust whilst committing worse atrocities on muslims and more. It goes on. As it stands I can't find any of that artwork online. I guess no-one wants to make it available on english-language websites. I, ah probably wouldn't have stuck any up anyway. I'd rather keep this blog from containing voerly-racist content. Reagrdless, anyone spot the hypocrisy here? So, if you draw cartoons of mohammed you're an evil heretic and must die. But it's perfectly fine to draw horrendously racist and insulting pictures about jews? Why so defensive, guys? Why so anti everyone elses religeon? Is there something we should know?
How glad I am Islam only allows violence in self defense.
Incidently, I hear mohammeds sword can be seen in a museum in some arab country or other. In the interests of seeing such relics from all peaceful religeons, anyone know where I can go to see christ, buddha or guru nanek's sword?
Saturday, September 09, 2006
A modest, if controversial, proposal.
I've been thinking. Oh yes. Thinking about many things, and nothing at all. Things both simplistic and philosophical, worldy and spiritual, pointless and worthless and, in some cases, actually pretty damned brilliant. But enough of the nonsesne: I have no idea why I wrote all that bullshit and to be honest can't remember what it was I wrote. Terrible.
Anyway, as we all know, the internet is probably the one place where true anonymity may reign supreme if given the chance. The internet is the true home of freedom of just about everything, whether for good or for ill. And thus the internet is the home of piracy, for it is just so easy to get at stuff which isn't yours. And what's wrong with that, I say?
Now bear with me, I'm not gonna go start suggesting that piracy is always right. It's not. But surely a still greater evil is charging people for that which does not physically exist, hmm? No? Maybe? I'll let you think about that one. Regardless, an economy of sorts is needed for any great civilisation, and the internet needs an economy. To be quite frank, I see money as being irrelevant here. Someone once said that money is the root of all evil. I'm inclined to agree. The supply of digital data needs something better. Something more logical. Something that isn't a material possesion. I've heard suggestion of the trading of currency from video games, for instance. But that's daft. We don't all play MMOs, now, do we? How about the feudal system? A trade of equal value. Well, who's to state the value of something? What is The Anarchist`s Handbook worth in relation to, say, The Complete Works of Shakespeare? And indeed, how does Shakespeare compare to marlowe, or Bacon? What of the works of Freud? What value would we place on artwork? On stolen goods? On services? I say we keep it simple. I say there is a better way. Free sharing for all, but within limits.
What we desire most is simple: Knowledge. And thus should all knowledge be available to all, hmm? Problem is, wikipedia won't give you it. Neither will books. Random websites? Those that aren't biased are hard to find, and even then won't have the full story. For such a thing does not exist. But yet it is a neccesity. But a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. And that, my friends, is where meritocracy comes into play.
Knowledge should be available to all, yes, but it should not just be handed out! It should be given only to those who seek it, who actively request! Those who ask. to quote from the bible for a moment, "ask and it shall be given unto thee. Seek and thou shalt find. Knock and the door shall be opened." Might've been meant in a different context, but the words are right. those who can rule, will, and those who cannot, will not. And how is merit defined? Not only on ability but on knowledge! Knowledge that may be shared freely with others.
So how does this tie in with copyright theft? Simple. IT'S NOT BLOODY COPRIGHT THEFT IF YOU DON'T MAKE ANY CASH FROM IT! It's a tad immoral, maybe, but that's where ethics come in. I propose that the "fansub ethic" be taken to heart: that by downloading ontent, y'agree that if y'like it y'll buy the real thing where appropriate. Assuming said real thing is available in a physical form, of course. Like I say, charging people for access to anything online is a crime of the highest order. For it judges not on merit, but on ability and, more importantly, on means. Those without disposable income are screwed. And that just goes against the base principles of basic human rights.
And that's why I'll be making the Woodsman rulebook available as a free download on release, as well as selling it in both harback end ebook formats (I fully expect folk to distribute ilegally copies fo the ebook version, and will be dissapointed if you don't, by the way. Just ignore the legal blurb.) Admitably if you go for the free option you won't get any of the artwork or fiction we made up for the commercial release, but is that really such a bad thing?
Anyway, as we all know, the internet is probably the one place where true anonymity may reign supreme if given the chance. The internet is the true home of freedom of just about everything, whether for good or for ill. And thus the internet is the home of piracy, for it is just so easy to get at stuff which isn't yours. And what's wrong with that, I say?
Now bear with me, I'm not gonna go start suggesting that piracy is always right. It's not. But surely a still greater evil is charging people for that which does not physically exist, hmm? No? Maybe? I'll let you think about that one. Regardless, an economy of sorts is needed for any great civilisation, and the internet needs an economy. To be quite frank, I see money as being irrelevant here. Someone once said that money is the root of all evil. I'm inclined to agree. The supply of digital data needs something better. Something more logical. Something that isn't a material possesion. I've heard suggestion of the trading of currency from video games, for instance. But that's daft. We don't all play MMOs, now, do we? How about the feudal system? A trade of equal value. Well, who's to state the value of something? What is The Anarchist`s Handbook worth in relation to, say, The Complete Works of Shakespeare? And indeed, how does Shakespeare compare to marlowe, or Bacon? What of the works of Freud? What value would we place on artwork? On stolen goods? On services? I say we keep it simple. I say there is a better way. Free sharing for all, but within limits.
What we desire most is simple: Knowledge. And thus should all knowledge be available to all, hmm? Problem is, wikipedia won't give you it. Neither will books. Random websites? Those that aren't biased are hard to find, and even then won't have the full story. For such a thing does not exist. But yet it is a neccesity. But a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. And that, my friends, is where meritocracy comes into play.
Knowledge should be available to all, yes, but it should not just be handed out! It should be given only to those who seek it, who actively request! Those who ask. to quote from the bible for a moment, "ask and it shall be given unto thee. Seek and thou shalt find. Knock and the door shall be opened." Might've been meant in a different context, but the words are right. those who can rule, will, and those who cannot, will not. And how is merit defined? Not only on ability but on knowledge! Knowledge that may be shared freely with others.
So how does this tie in with copyright theft? Simple. IT'S NOT BLOODY COPRIGHT THEFT IF YOU DON'T MAKE ANY CASH FROM IT! It's a tad immoral, maybe, but that's where ethics come in. I propose that the "fansub ethic" be taken to heart: that by downloading ontent, y'agree that if y'like it y'll buy the real thing where appropriate. Assuming said real thing is available in a physical form, of course. Like I say, charging people for access to anything online is a crime of the highest order. For it judges not on merit, but on ability and, more importantly, on means. Those without disposable income are screwed. And that just goes against the base principles of basic human rights.
And that's why I'll be making the Woodsman rulebook available as a free download on release, as well as selling it in both harback end ebook formats (I fully expect folk to distribute ilegally copies fo the ebook version, and will be dissapointed if you don't, by the way. Just ignore the legal blurb.) Admitably if you go for the free option you won't get any of the artwork or fiction we made up for the commercial release, but is that really such a bad thing?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Woodsman. Informal notes
Ok, if you have no interest i n the RPG I'm designing, you can safely ignore this, in the knowledge it has no interest to you whatsoever. If, however, you happen to like newly created fantasy worlds, this informal note may be of vague interest. it's just some thoughts i've thrown together on one of the settings.
martas
Martas is a relitively new country, having split off from the Rheinhold following the revolution. The revolution was led by a group following the book known as "die revolution!" Politics in martas consists, basically, of a five-man elected council. Every five years the council chooses the governor from within their ranks, and council members stay on the council for life (crosref: political assassinations.) Everyone else is a peasent, and lives in squallor, and hates their life, and has to pay huge taxes they can't afford, and is at risk from the "non-existant" secret police who obey the orders of the governor. Martas also has an impressively large army, albeit one which is entirely volountary. Conscription almost never occurs, and despite the high risk in being a soldier, the perks are considered worth the risk (particularly the immunity to the law and the getting paid enough to live on.) Incidently, the army also runs the police force. No, not the secret police, the state police. the ones who exist. Military law, then.
Martas is an enemy of all who oppose the revolution, in aprticular Iyar, and has no allies. No-one else supports the revolution.
martas
Martas is a relitively new country, having split off from the Rheinhold following the revolution. The revolution was led by a group following the book known as "die revolution!" Politics in martas consists, basically, of a five-man elected council. Every five years the council chooses the governor from within their ranks, and council members stay on the council for life (crosref: political assassinations.) Everyone else is a peasent, and lives in squallor, and hates their life, and has to pay huge taxes they can't afford, and is at risk from the "non-existant" secret police who obey the orders of the governor. Martas also has an impressively large army, albeit one which is entirely volountary. Conscription almost never occurs, and despite the high risk in being a soldier, the perks are considered worth the risk (particularly the immunity to the law and the getting paid enough to live on.) Incidently, the army also runs the police force. No, not the secret police, the state police. the ones who exist. Military law, then.
Martas is an enemy of all who oppose the revolution, in aprticular Iyar, and has no allies. No-one else supports the revolution.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The following was written for Nintendowned.com a few months bac, shortly before the DS wi-fi service was launched. it was never published. I figured I found it in my notebook, and decided that, for prosperity, I might as well stick it up here.
In two weeks, Nintendo will be launching their DS wireless gaming service in Europe. For those of you who've been living under a rock for the past few months, this could well be the biggest event in handheld gaming this year. DS owners all over the world will be able to play each other, and more importantly it's free. Nintendo have arranged for DS compatibility in almost all iwreless hotspots (a quick search on the website reveals the only hotspot within ten miles of my house is the local pub. Nice.) as well as DS demo pods. More interestingly will be the home-access compatibility. For 30 quid you can get a USB dongle for your PC that turns it into a wireless reciever. Or you could just use your home wireless network if you have one. Oh, and you can get a free dongle with mariokart DS, so you don't have an excuse. Are you suggesting you don't like Mariokart? Please stay where you are. The game police will be dispatching a kill-team shortly.
Most of you know all this. I don't get paid to tell you what you already know in this column (wassat? I don't get paid at all? Of all the cheek! I am outraged! I want to complain! I [You're fired-ed]). I'm supposed to be commenting. And making you laugh. And musing on wireless online gameplay for free and how it fits into the bigger picture. Which is exactly what I plan on doing.
Well, it's one in the eye for other games companies for a start. Sure, PSP has the "amazing" use of actually being able to play against other PSP owners in the general vicinity! On games that are designed for home consoles! And has a cack battery life! And sure, your NGage lets you play people on the go blah blah blah. Wut willl they let you show off your "1337 5killz" and "pwn" kids from japan? Well neither will DS. Pretty scarily good with games, those Japanese kids. But DS will let you get "pwned" by Japanese kids! No longer is there the infamous problem facing gamers, particularly in quiet areas: that finding an opponent is near impossible. No more travelling 20 miles to find enough players for that neat tournament option. No more wandering the streets and hanging around game stores looking for folk with DS's. Plug into an entire network of opponents from home. And it's free! Take that XBox Live!
In two weeks, Nintendo will be launching their DS wireless gaming service in Europe. For those of you who've been living under a rock for the past few months, this could well be the biggest event in handheld gaming this year. DS owners all over the world will be able to play each other, and more importantly it's free. Nintendo have arranged for DS compatibility in almost all iwreless hotspots (a quick search on the website reveals the only hotspot within ten miles of my house is the local pub. Nice.) as well as DS demo pods. More interestingly will be the home-access compatibility. For 30 quid you can get a USB dongle for your PC that turns it into a wireless reciever. Or you could just use your home wireless network if you have one. Oh, and you can get a free dongle with mariokart DS, so you don't have an excuse. Are you suggesting you don't like Mariokart? Please stay where you are. The game police will be dispatching a kill-team shortly.
Most of you know all this. I don't get paid to tell you what you already know in this column (wassat? I don't get paid at all? Of all the cheek! I am outraged! I want to complain! I [You're fired-ed]). I'm supposed to be commenting. And making you laugh. And musing on wireless online gameplay for free and how it fits into the bigger picture. Which is exactly what I plan on doing.
Well, it's one in the eye for other games companies for a start. Sure, PSP has the "amazing" use of actually being able to play against other PSP owners in the general vicinity! On games that are designed for home consoles! And has a cack battery life! And sure, your NGage lets you play people on the go blah blah blah. Wut willl they let you show off your "1337 5killz" and "pwn" kids from japan? Well neither will DS. Pretty scarily good with games, those Japanese kids. But DS will let you get "pwned" by Japanese kids! No longer is there the infamous problem facing gamers, particularly in quiet areas: that finding an opponent is near impossible. No more travelling 20 miles to find enough players for that neat tournament option. No more wandering the streets and hanging around game stores looking for folk with DS's. Plug into an entire network of opponents from home. And it's free! Take that XBox Live!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
