Holy-celeb!

And fuckidy fuck! Who would’ve thought my brother knew how to write world-class celebrity articles!

I was going to call this blog "Podcasting", but that's not a word, or anything, really

Aiight. That’s it. I don’t want to hear any more about your fucking iPod. An iPod is one of those things that is designed so wonderfully simple that any dumbass knows what it is, what it does and how to use it making it an ideal candidate for tech-hype. Because some newbie woke up and saw an iPod, and it’s the only piece of technology that makes any sense, they have to have one. Everyone wants one because they understand it. And in this post I’m going to give you points for the number of stupid things you’ve said or done proving you’ve been sucked in by the ‘pod. Let’s begin.

I have news. Fuck iPods.

If you’ve said to someone in the past 6 months something like “I’ve got an iPod. Do you?” go kill yourself, or stuff your ‘pod in your mouth, and gain 10 points for every time you’ve said it

If you’ve said something like “why don’t you have an iPod? You’re missing out!” then tell me who you said that to. I’m going to visit them and ask them why they didn’t hit you. Then I’ll hit them, and then track you down and hit you and then you can add 15 points for every time you’ve said it

“But why would you hack on my favourite toy?” I can hear you impressionable idiots cry. Well, I’m going to make this simple. iPods were not a new idea. Mp3s aren’t a new idea either. There were a thousand portable mp3 players available when the ‘pod came out. The difference is Apple just did shit simple. Simple enough for you meatheads to work it out. And what’s worse is the people who lift themselves a social rung in the ladder of “coolness” because they have an iPod and thinks just because a person doesn’t have one, they don’t belong. I think anyone that DOES have a ‘pod and thinks they’re better people because of it should be rounded up, and put into a big meat grinder and fed to whales.

To show you how positively STUPID you people are by being sucked into this gimmick (i.e. being tricked into buying a ‘pod instead of another MP3 player just because your mate at the rugby club was bragging about it), I’ll explain a new phenomenon coming out. It’s called Podcasting. And I laughed and laughed when I heard the definition on the news! Some dumb fuck actually thought this was news!

According to Wikipedia, "’Podcasting’ is making audio files (most commonly in MP3 format) available online in a way that allows software to automatically download the files for listening at the user's convenience.” So basically, Podcasting is a person making an audio file (technology which has been around for, say fifty years or so) and then uploading it so someone can download it! Fuck! Now THERE is a novel idea! Imagine downloading an audio file and putting it on your MP3 player! Oh, how the world will change!

If you’ve said to anyone that Podcasting is cool, or a new idea, add 50 points for every time you’ve said. Or even mentioned it

Some dumbass actually thought because he has an iPod, creating files for THAT is different somehow to creating files for normal MP3 players, and therefore gave it a new name all you dumbasses are drooling over. And this is basically what they said on the news:

“There’s a new craze coming out called Podcasting! I don’t know anything about technology, but this is what I was told. Basically, to Podcast, all you need is an audio file of yourself talking, and upload it. Amazing! Who knew people could upload and download files?”

To put this MORE into perspective for you losers, read this article about how stupid you’d have to be to buy an iPod for the sake of having an iPod. Read. Touché.

And now to answer a couple of questions you’re going to ask in defence of your weak intellect and insecure social status.

Q. You’re just jealous YOU don’t have an iPod.
A. Actually, I’m not jealous, and you’re right, I don’t have one. And this is because I don’t need one. I don’t travel enough to warrant it and even though I’m a DJ and need to listen to music quite a lot, I can do that at home, and at work. I don’t think filling in any more time with music is necessary. What’s worse is that your most beloved piece of plastic can’t play tracks without putting gaps between them which is awesome! I love having music butchered because some geeks can’t sort their toys out.

Q. You don’t want one?
A. Who doesn’t want one? If someone purchased one for me, then I’d be stupid not to take it, but as I said above I can’t justify spending $500 on one just to fill in the 20 minutes it takes me to get to work. Do note, however, nowhere in my post have I said that iPods are stupid, it’s just the people that use them. If I had a need, the iPod would be a worthy contender…

Q. Well, how do I know if I should get one? My mate at the pub said that I really need one because he got one and it’s awesome.
A. Oh, ok. This is easy. Right now, how much do you listen to music? If it’s not every minute you’re working at your desk or sitting at home, or in your car, and you don’t travel at least 10 hours a month on a plane, then you don’t need one. If you really wanted to listen to music, you’d do it at your desk, at home and in your car, but you don’t, so what makes you think you’ll listen to music during that time just because it’s an iPod? Pull your head in.

Right. And to finish off, lets get some much needed points to finish the post.

Add 1000 points for every month you haven’t used your iPod since you got it

RESULTS:

If you got over 0 points, then you’re an idiot, and you should keep your ‘pod and your ideas to yourself. To find out how many brain cells were wasted bragging about your iPod and how great it is, and how many brain cells Apple have sucked from your already limited supply, multiply your total number of points by 1000.

Fuck I hate people that think they’re tech-geeks after finding a piece of technology they can make work. And stop talking about Podcasting, unless it’s throwing your iPod away. That would be sweet…

slashdot today

• Find out how Batman's suit works


• Back to the moon in 10 years... If we did it 50 years ago, why can't we do it again? Bah

Animate this!

Yeah, I don’t know about you but I’m getting sick of animated movies. They’re all about animals or toys (mostly) and the storylines are getting old. I guess “good on you” to the companies that bankroll them, because you may as well make as much money out of the animated movies rush as possible, but I for one will not be seeing any more for a long time.

I bring this up because an advertisement I walk past every day sports a poster for “Madagascar”, a new movie coming out. The tagline gives it all away: “They weren’t born in the wild, they were shipped there”. What? What kind of tagline is that? “There’s not 5 animals, there’s 6!” would be better. Almost anything would be. I can just tell it’s going to involve some stupid plot where one of them gets lost or trapped and then everyone will feel bad, and then he’ll free himself at the last minute.

One thing I notice with these types of movies is they have to have a depressing plot. Take Finding Dumbass (Nimo) for instance. It starts with Nimo’s mum getting eaten by a shark, then Nimo gets caught and put in a fish tank in a dental studio. Can it get any more depressing? Is this the kind of crap we want our kids to watch? “Don’t worry son! You’d better get used to this, life is exactly like it.”

A Shark’s Tale? What the fuck kind of name for a movie is that? Never saw it.

Anyway, I know there is not really any structure to this post, I’m just rambling, but the point is animated movies are now not all good like they used to be, but now are like normal movies: you need to watch 9 shit and crap movies before you come across 1 good one.

No more animation for me (apart from Shrek 3. You know, the director (and writer of the second one) is a New Zealander, and the director’s old man was my teacher at Uni. I’m better than you). Bah!

Prince of poos

Right. So a few weeks ago my brother came over to my place with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. I’ve had the demo in my collection of games for a while, but to me there is nothing worse than having to learn all the complex movements and actions a new character can do. Especially with this game, they don’t hold back, and they try and teach you everything at once. It overwhelmed me, and I turned it off after a couple of minutes.

Brother insisted, however. “Play. It’s fun.” So I did, and I have to say that after getting my head around what was going on, I got right into it and ended up finishing the entire game in about 10 hours, and I can say (if not just for myself, for many other people also), that Prince of Persia is one of the best games ever devised. And when I mean “best”, I don’t mean shit, I mean really really good.

If we take a quick glance back to the original Prince of Persia game that came out early nineties for our wonderful 25mhz computers, it still was one of the most addictive and innovative games ever. Although it was a platform game, the levels were still put into isometric form to give a feeling of depth. It was difficult to leave, simple to play and easy to get involved in. A true classic, and after playing the Sands of Time it is easy to see that the same thought and development processes were followed to construct another classic that we’ll look back to in 10 years and goggle at how awesome it was.

The Sands of Time involved some pretty sweet fighting graphics and motion, and some pretty cool effects also, but like most fighting games you get pretty bored after a few minutes. But just when you’re about to complain to someone about it, along comes a well-thought through puzzle that’ll take you an hour of wondering and fiddling to figure out how it all works. Unlike some games that you get frustrated in because the developers just made it plain hard for the sake of it, the Sands of Time had puzzles that tested the mind and your logical problem solving skills. I found it an absolute blast solving a problem that was all in 3d and wasn’t too easy. And there wasn’t just one. All in all, there were about 5 puzzles throughout the game that took some serious brain-power (for me, anyway) to get done.

The attention to detail was also something they didn’t forget to focus on. Little things like going into 1st person view (which is used rarely, like when you need to look at something in detail) and looking at a person would have that person acknowledge you for what you were doing. “What are you looking at?” the ‘leading actress’ queries when you look at her. And the further into the game you go, the more her facial expressions change and the more receptive she is. Quite brilliant, really. Other helpful things included flash-forwards of things to come to give you little hints that are really necessary when working on problems of such large magnitudes. The outdoor scenes were spectacular and high, giving me ugly bouts of vertigo. All in all it gets a good 9/10 from me. A damn good game.

And regardless what everyone else said, I was determined to get the second one. And what a piss-off that turned out to be. Compared to the Sands of Time, the Warrior Within involved a horribly complex story-line that was conveyed poorly, and contained more bugs than an African food hut.

The storyline in a nutshell consisted of the Prince finding out he is going to die in the future, and so he takes a trip to the past in an effort to change the course of time, be it by trying to stop the sands of time being created. I’ve not finished the game, nor do I fully understand what is happening, so apologies if I’m misrepresented the true goal, but who really cares? Basically we’re on an island and we keep swapping from current time, to past time and back again every hour or so to do something. I don’t know what, exactly, but something. I know we go back to the past to stop the sands of time being created, but why we come back to the present doesn’t make any sense. To make matters worse, there is a huge angry guy will bull-horns that is really pissed off that we’ve cheated fate and is out to make sure we finally meet it, which is a pretty cool metaphor really, but once again poorly conveyed.

The music is gay (no doubt played by a crazy Asian with his first electric grunge guitar and a fetish for power chords), and for some reason, even though there is a “Speech” volume control, when you turn the “Music” volume control down to turn off the music, you can’t hear the speech anymore. Don’t ask me what the Speech control does; probably turn down the screen contrast or something.

And worst of all, there is no puzzles. I don’t want to fight; I want to solve some trippy puzzles made by Einstein-type geeks that’ll take me a year to solve, but no. Evidently too much to ask. All I seem to be doing is going to the past to kill some guys and open some chests of “hidden artwork”, as if I care, and then going to the present to kill some more guys, visit the same places I visited in the past for no reason, and stumble around trying to figure out which door to take. No flash-forwards to make sense, no solid storyline and basically a mockery of the Sands of Time.

On the upside, the fighting has gotten better, with more actions and better graphics, but that’s about it.

As a guideline for a new Prince of Persia, if anyone cares, you should do the following:

Take the Sands of Time engine, modify it SLIGHTLY to get some of the fight sequences a bit more complex and make shitloads of cool puzzles. Anyone can make a fighting game, but when people have to use their brains it takes it to a new level. Better still, don’t make the game linear, but make a logical area or castle that has a bunch of puzzles you know you have to solve, but which you can do in any order you want. That would be sweet.

Someone should pay me to develop POP3.

Simplicity is da key (part two)

I got in trouble for being racist the other day, but after further investigation it turns out that racism is a wonderfully flexible and mouldable term. People create these complex algorithms for working out if a person is racist or not, and more often than not just so they can say they’re not racist themselves.

Listen, and listen carefully. If you think about a person differently in ANY WAY depending on their skin colour or religion or race, you’re racist. It’s that simple. You’re passing judgement about someone before you check it out.

Racism in this respect is the same as stereotyping. If you’re racist (using the definition above), you also stereotype. There is no “line” you cross where you’re only racist if the assumption about the person is particularly negative or something, it’s a blanket cover, and it’s not wrong if the image portrayed by the race or religion is what you’re being racist about.

For example, around here in New Zealand, if the Pakeha (White Person) got some kind of subsidy from the government that the Maori didn’t get, then that would be racist. But if you counted all the things the Maori get from the government (monetary and otherwise), it would top thousands, but that ISN’T racist. It’s ok for the Maori to take it. This is what I’m talking about.

Quite frankly, it’s about time people stopped being PC and started doing something about what is going on.

For those who WANT racism, then this is what was on 60 Minutes the other night. It was a show focusing on the amount of crime Maori people commit in our country.

In Rotorua (one of our major cities in New Zealand):

• 81% of all domestic violence is committed by Maori


• 90% of aggravated robbery is committed by Maori


• Maori make up only one third of the total population of Rotorua yet commit 70% of the crime there


• If Maori committed the same amount of crime as Pakeha, New Zealand would have one of the lowest crime rates in the world

jim's quotes (number 2 of 588)

You are a silly sausage.

Only in Amer...no. New Zealand?

Hehheh. I’m reading the paper. More specifically I’m reading an article about how the hospitals in NZ have to upgrade their beds and some scanning equipment because of the increasing obesity problem we’re having in New Zealand. Obesity? I thought that was an American thing.

I guess it’s not as though I’m the splitting image of Brad Pitt, but I definitely wouldn’t let myself go THAT far. Gym membership in a couple of weeks I think.

Anyway, it’s quite funny that things have changed so much in the past 20 years (people have grown so much in that time) that we have to update equipment because the existing stuff isn’t structurally strong enough to handle us. What’s next? Busses with only 2 seats across instead of 4? At least you wouldn’t have to sit next to anyone.

I wonder that if the government took a radical stance and changed just one “small” thing like making sure all food sold in fast food outlets adhered to a certain health standard for instance, would people actually realise they were doing it for the better and may also realise that other things in life can be changed for the better? Worth a try, don’t you think?

Uh-oh. I can hear Right to Life marching down the road.

My view

This morning I was “rudely” interrupted in my shower by a couple of guys wanting to have a conversation about my “relationship with god”. After my potentially dangerous post yesterday, and various discussions about the political and social correctness of it, I answered my door in just a towel, and began a good 20 minute conversation about my beliefs and why they were so.

I’ve got quite a balanced view on the topic of God, Bibles and beliefs of such, and I was actually quite keen to have a chat with someone from “the other side”. Many things were said, all in good taste and nothing less than healthy and balanced in viewpoint.

When asked if I believe in God etc, my response was something along the lines of:

“I consider myself a scientist [just finishing my applied science degree, so I actually will be a scientist] so I deal every day with actions, reactions and things that only happen and work for a reason. I deal with proof, so if I can’t prove something I have a hard time believing in it. I know,” I said, “that it may mean I miss out on some stuff, but that is what I’ve chosen to do.

“Don’t get me wrong. I acknowledge that some people want or need to believe in something to get along in life. They need to know someone is always there, and meeting their mates every Sunday could very well help them through life, and if it makes things easier, and it doesn’t hurt anyone, then what’s the harm? I’ve got nothing against it. But I get along quite OK without it.”

The older guy that was there obviously had heard it all before. “You believe in the wind. You feel it and it’s cold, but you can’t see that! Obviously there HAD to be a creator for this wonderful world to be created,” he said as he turned and swept his hand motioning at the park I live beside.

“Sure, but how are you going to prove who created it? I guess ‘creation’ is a loose term when looked at from our points of view.”

“Hold it,” the younger guy said, “all this can be proved in the scriptures in this,” holding up the Bible. “But we could argue about it all day. We’ve got some booklets you can read that will explain the creation of everything with the proof if you are interested…”
Ah shit. There it goes. Irrationality. “No thanks guys, all the same.”
“*sigh* That’s ok. Sorry to bother.”
“Good luck.”

At the end of the day, as I said in my previous post about Right To Life, these people are focusing on the wrong thing once again. Best case scenario, they’ll get all of about 5% of people they see saying “yeah ok, I’ll try one of those booklets” and about 1% saying “yeah ok, I’ll see you this Sunday.” I can’t help but feel if these guys focused on helping the people already in their church, their time and effort would be better spent, no?

Anyway, as you can see I’m not ALL bad. :D

in the paper

UPDATE: I've re-read this and have decided (with help from other readers) maybe it was a little much. I've toned down my language, and taken any offensive comments out. I've been told (and rightly so) that good points mean nothing if coupled with personal insults. BING!

-----------------------------

I sent this to "Right To Life", an anti-abortion group here in New Zealand. Can't wait to see what I get back!

"This, put in my blog. I bet you people don't put this on your website because a balanced opinion wouldn't support your cause.

Excuse the bad language, and any offensive comments but I feel my right to do what the hell I want is being quashed by you guys.

"I was just reading today that there is a group called Right To Life, who get upset every time someone gets an abortion.

There are a couple of issues I want to raise:

First of all, people don’t get abortions for the sake of it. They don’t wake up one day and say “Hey! I’ve got nothing better to do today than have some random stick objects into my body and pull a part of me out! Let’s get started!” It’s not a game, and people don’t feel better about themselves after doing it.

Secondly, they’re people that are smart and realise that having a kid at their point in life is not such a smart thing to do. There are more kids than we can save being hit by their parents, who don’t have clothes or shoes and who get a shitty start (and most of the time, middle and end) to life. We don’t have the police to police them, we don’t have the doctors to aid them and we don’t have the social support systems to give them what they deserve in life.

Here is what I think you guys at RTL should do.

Firstly, leave these people alone. They’re having a hard enough time as it is making a life-changing decision. They already have a feeling that they’ve done (or will do) something wrong, but also realise that keeping a kid alive when they’re not ready for one is also a mistake. Get off their back and stop using them as an excuse to complain about something. Put yourself in their shoes, if you end up having an accident that left you handicapped, would you want me and all my mates hovering around you telling you death is better for you than living?

Secondly, don’t start with this whole “they can be adopted” crap. That’s a wonderful solution in the short term, but how do you think the kid will feel when they find out? And who are you to tell them they should go through that?

Thirdly, I don’t see how people in New Zealand can beat their kids and deprive them of everything they need, and you guys are encouraging people having children they acknowledge they don’t need or want? If you want to worry about children and what is happening to them, you’re looking in the wrong place. Parents have the right to let their kids watch porn or violent movies, let them play x-box fighting games, take them out of school, teach them to fight and swear, teach them to be disrespectful, kill animals, shoot guns and go through life living off the dole, and you guys are worried about a parent having the right to terminate a “human” before it is bigger than a golf ball?
I don’t particularly like the idea of people having abortions, but think about the implications of making them have the baby. Surely this decision is a good one in many cases.

The problem with you people is that you pick on one flaw or problem a person is having and burn the people with it. You don’t care about any of the other problems; “let someone else deal with them,” you say. “We’ve got abortion to solve.” A perfect example of this is RTL spending all your energy, time and money trying to prevent abortions, when if you just looked at the slightly bigger picture you may find that encouraging or educating people to use condoms, for instance, is a less offending, more humane way of saving unborn babies.

It just proves my point that you’re not doing this to stop abortions, you’re doing this because you don’t have anything better to do and you want your name in the newspaper.

That's all.""