and the 100th post is...

A big picture what i done drew.


I might tell you about it tomorrow, but theres not much to say, and i want to sleep first.

Night

dvds

Guys, i have a terrible dvd collection, and i dont want them anymore, so i am going to give them away for free. It will save you money and let me clear some space.
I know theres a lot of eastern films in there.. i went through a brief phase of interest and i had a couple of friends (well namely chris) who just kept giving them to me. To be honest, several of them i have not even seen. Actually, about half of these were given to me by various people, i'm really not a dvd person.

DVDS
Evangelion 1-8
sci-bots 'zalo' (i may just charge you 5p for this)
Hero
Arahan
star wars 1-6 (or 4-3, depending on your geek level)
Warrior King
Ong Bak
Time Bandits
azumi
dark city
seven swords
casshern
donnie darko
Animatrix
dark crystal
labyrinth (yes with the david bowie)
battle royale
Spirited away
Moulin rouge
Save the green planet (misleading title.. its a korean horror)
Excel saga vol 2 (no, theres no vol 1. dont ask.)
kai doh naru
ghost in the shell
kill bill pt 1
infernal affairs trilogy


GAMES
psychonauts
project zero
viewtiful joe
splinter cell chaos theory
splinter cell pandora tomorrow
final fantasy 7
brave soul (japanese hentai pc game, never got it to work myself)
GTA vice city (pc)


several of these will get taken to CEX anyway if no one wants them.

clarkson according to me

Ok after a discussion last night i've decided to make this rant public- for future reference.



Jeremy Clarkson. He's a very funny man. But i do not respect his opinion on cars. Normally when i say this, people jump back and/ or look at me with disgust and patronisingly ask why. So here it is.

Firstly, i'll admit the opinion is not entirely my own- i inherited it from my dad. But that's ok, because he designs cars, and if you're going to get an opinion on cars, may as well be from the man behind the drawing board actually designing the damn things.

Anyway, his (and my) opinion on Mr Clarkson is many fold:

The most obvious first of all it's Jeremy's rudeness towards cars he doesn't like. This can't really be helped because he is a reporter and, well, rudeness gets laughs. Still my dad's thoughts can be summed up when he accidentally won a raffle to drive a tank over a ford car, but he refused: 'Some poor buggar had to design that'. To the rest of the world a car is just a metal object that materialised in germany or wherever, but, for some poor buggar it put the dinner on the table for him and his family. Even shit cars take years of effort to make.

As said though, this really can't be helped. But it's worth noting this a little hint at the distance he puts between the car buyers and the industry. Let me explain more.

Environmentalism. Jeremy Clarkson has been pretty blunt about not liking it. You could almost say he promotes the petrolhead, anti-environmentalist attitude on his show. That's fine, that's his personal opinion.. but he is so out of step with the automotive industry it's almost a crime that he's allowed to be seen as the face of it.
The bottom line is, the automotive industry is one big, powerful industry. It is backed and funded by some of the most rich and powerful oil merchants in the world. If engineers didn't want to become environmentalist, they wouldn't have to. In fact, there are oil companies who actively do not want the car industry to pursue environmentalism, and engineers have had to fight, reason and bypass them for any change at all. Why would automotive employees want environmentalism? Let's take a look.

Money and jobs. Research into alternative fuels, research into improved fuel efficiency, the redesign of engines, the manufacture new engines, testing of new cars.. all vast businesses in themselves and these all create vital jobs. Clarkson may like to see the same ideals rehashed in every car ever made but sadly for him the industry doesn't. When you're using something old and established you're minimising jobs and that doesn't go down well with trade unions and employees. I mean, there's a limit to how many jobs adding extra cup holders can make, and people certainly haven't been working 25 years in the industry to make a bit of plastic with a hole in it. More and more research is being done into alternative design, like electric cars, plant fuel and even speed record breaking steam cars.. and guess what, the industry is healthier and livelier for it.
Then there's the selling bit. If people are switching on to environmentalism, they'll buy things with that mark. If you're the first to produce a car with that selling point, you've got a niche on the market. If you can produce a car that's better at it than the last, you've got an edge over your competitors. these are very good things. Now if only you could stop TV presenters getting the public to laugh at them..

Then theres the fact that people in the automotive industry are.. well, people. They aren't evil, mindless pollution-bent monsters like you see on captain planet, they're intelligent, well meaning humans like you and me. They live on the earth too, they eat food too, many have kids or grandkids or want to have kids. The majority are clever, well educated people with sound scientific understanding. When they watch wildlife programmes or read science magazines they care about that stuff just like anyone else would. When my dad tells me about things like the ethanol fuelled cars of south america, or his visitations to the steam car land speed project, he isnt just making it all up to look noble and cool to environmentalists, its because he is an engineer and engineers find this stuff interesting. So please, just stop treating them like they hate the earth, okay? Even if you think you're standing up for them. Actually, especially if. And if you do nothing else, stop blindly agreeing with what you hear from funny men on TV.

So essentially, my thoughts are this. He is a journalist, and he does the job well because he's engaging and he can talk about cars, but he is not a representative of the industry. Think about how many times he's ever had someone from the actual industry on his show to talk about the cars. Or even cars in general- and no, owning a car does not automatically make you an expert. The majority of information comes from his mouth in the form of his opinion, which is no better connected to the automotive world than anyone else's. But most importantly, when he promotes an opinion that goes against the thoughts of the industry, he's essentially standing in the way of progress. And that is why i do not respect his opinion on cars.

Noobs? But why?

[Ive decided to create a new post tag. Its going to be called 'parapost.' These happen when i find a post on the internet that is so mind-wrenchingly stupid that i barely need to change a few words (for the sake of plagiarism) and the rest mocks itself.

I resent the source of today's parapost, and apologise profusely, because 1. it's pissing me off that i've ended up writing about WoW more than usual lately, and 2. I only subscribed to wow.com so i can laugh at the horrendously socially defective people who write it. Still, here it is, and i urge you to read the original too so that you know i'm not joking.]


by Lou Zerr, Nov 8th 2009 at 2:00PM

Here's a perplexing thought. We've already talked about how blizzard is revamping the newbie experience, but we want to know: For whom? I mean everyone I know started playing since launch day and is level 80 now. Sure, when I occasionally take breaks from my 24/7 raiding for this week's latest top-rated gear, I have spotted the odd sub-level79 newbie pipsqueek running about the place. But these are only bored level 80 players replaying the whole game on another character, right? And they have already played the game and naturally won't want it changed, so why update it?

It's an interesting question. Neth, a blizzard moderator, answers pretty tamely, saying that new players are one of those things you get in games, and apparently they like to have fun, too. It's almost like Blizzard is actually anticipating some of these inexperienced newbie types to join the game.. could this be as ridiculous as it sounds?

If so (and lets face it, when a game is 5 years old, why would anyone think about revamping it?) where could these people possibly come from? Are they actually thinking of selling Catacylsm to new players as well or something? I mean obviously catacylsm will bring people back to the game, but I'd assume that most regular gamers have already played WoW and/or another game at some point. [huh? ed.]

Since Wow only normally recieves an average of 2 million new players a year, something must be afoot or else blizzard wouldn't be expecting anymore newbies like, at all. But what? The WoW movie is mentioned by a few players, and that's certainly a possibility [Are you joking? ed.]. The Battle.net system might also help Starcraft II players find out about World of Warcraft. These are the only two sources i can think of, and even when combined they probably won't bring enough players for blizzard to justify making work for their ridiculously overfunded company.

Unless Blizzard has something else up their sleeve -- something like WoW going free-to-play or giving us extra bonuses for selling off more friends' souls. Maybe that would explain why they're making leveling easier. [um rather than because adding more content makes top level harder to reach? ed.] Whatever it is, Blizzard definitely thinks the newbie hordes are coming. As with so much of this game, we'll have to wait and see. [You're a retard. ed.]

A day in the week of October

Guess what people, i'm not dead.. and ive got posts to prove it.


It may be autumn here, but elsewhere in the solar system..
Theres a little robot on Mars travelling across the meridiani plain to reach the endeavor crater (not the one pictured). Didya know that? huh? huh? It's now been travelling over a year, taking pictures and sending back data from its journey along the way. It's unbearably cute and wondrous, but im surprised nasa didnt just let it land at the crater, poor thing. That said, i'm a great believer in what can be learnt and enjoyed from the journey rather than from the ending, so really, i understand.

[i like this guy]

As webcomics go, my interest is below average. The warcraft webcomic world is another universe of itself, and there seems to be quite a lot of variety. But i still take a bit of convincing.
It is interesting though that the range of styles mirrors the range of players you get. Ultimately, it reflects the two main categories. You've got the creative, imaginative types that play to explore the world, get mixed up in the story for a month, and go away making up their own little story arcs (as if we weren't having trouble keeping up with blizzard's already). It tends to vary from in-character sketches to long, winding sagas. It's become such a scene blizzard have started taking entries and publishing their favourite fan stories which are sold alongside the official manga.

[i like this guy too]

Then there are the self absorbed groupie types who digitally hang out together to go raiding with their "guildies" *twitch* and who approach the game as simply something to fill the social void in their lives.. No offence to these people. Their comics are mostly players making 'witty' observations about 'noobs' (which seems to mean people with anything less than 5 epic-geared lvl 80s... so about 95% of WoW players) and, you know, in jokes. Ok to be fair, they occasionally get it right.. but still.. I can't help my disgust at those with the pissy 'Oh you need at least X of stat Y to play' attitudes and the embarrassingly struggling grip on reality. Um, so you can probably guess which category i relate to.
Lastly, it's also nice to see the number that are produced by girl players. Because despite what people may have you believe, girls do play. Incidentally, i didnt find all these myself, im not that sad. I cheated.


The other day some stuff happened that made charlie brooker, derren brown and stephen fry all feel very important, more so than usual, and they all still are by the sounds. If somehow you missed it because, i don't know, you were on holiday in a the middle of the sahara desert and the batteries had gone flat on all your internet compatible devices- in which case i'm very sorry to hear that and i cant imagine how you survived- this should sum it up for you.
But the original article is really very boring. If you'd like a better translation of it, this one translates perfectly.


Um, For now, thats all i've got..

Mass debate all over the world

WARNING. This is a VERY long and possibly boring post. It has been a long time coming, though please don't take that as an indication of the quality you should expect. This is really just the sum of something i've been interested in for some time.

Being a citizen of the internet, i cannot help but observe a lot of talk referring to some kind of upcoming 'end is nigh' that is due pretty soon. Various end-of-days prophecies include the 'end' of the Mayan calender, global warming, the manifestation of the new world order, and the second coming of jesus.
I'm not so much interested in the prophecies- i've heard them so many times. What interests me is everyones thoughts on the destiny and purpose of mankind.

In britain, we have a compact and rich enough culture that we have a relatively consistant vision of society. On the whole, we all seem to share core beliefs: Science is real, education is good, music is important, no one has to be christian if they don't want to be and there is nothing wrong with a good fantasy about elves and wizards.

Certain larger, younger cultures are a little more schizophrenic and polarised about the topic. Different groups tug at society to bring them round to their way of thought before it's too late. At first it seems there are two teams, the filthy, peace-loving liberals vs the hateful, fundamentalist republicans. But the more i expose myself to american media the more it seems apparent there are in fact several, seperate areas of tension, not necessarily all running parallel with each other: Not all scientists are atheists, some christians respect nature, and not all satanists actually adopt individualism.

The following is simply an analysis of some of the moral conflicts i see coming out of america right now, in my view, so far. I've included links so you cant accuse me of making it up. Make what you will of it.. debate is very welcome.

CHRISTIANITY VS PAGANISM
-Humanity vs Nature-

This is about those that see humanity as the centre of everything; and those that see humanity as a tiny part of a bigger, deeper world. 'Christian' and 'Pagan' are old terms- but many modern day values and ideas derive from their ancient schools of thought.

Team 1: Take a look at abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.. The deities are human like, the baddies are beast-like. It presents humans as above animals. God is only interested in human affairs and for them it is debatable if animals even have souls. At its heart is a god justifying anything man does as long as it keeps up the worship. The existence of nature is a mere footnote in mankind's story.

Team 2: On the other hand, Pagans- and this really applies to native religions globally- personify all aspects of the earth, life, and celestial bodies. Hills, springs, rocks, trees.. all of these maybe haunted or personified by other worldly spirits. These spirits are not always humanlike, and aren't always around for human benefit. They just exist because that's what the world is like. In scandinavia especially, entire valleys and mountains were left untouched out of respect for the sprits there. This view sees mankind in a humble place as piece of nature, not an authority above it.

The clash:
We know about the environmentalist movement. Global warming, concern for animal welfare and the recent interest in organic and sustainable farming. But not everyone is ok with this.
If i may quote a christian describing pagan values: "Neo-Pagan-Borderline-Satanic-the-Environment-is-more-important-than-human-life beliefs."

Another, more blunt article explains:

"The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever, and we know this is not God's plan". "So we see that rather than trying to preserve the earth for thousands or even millions of years to come, we are to be good stewards of it for as long as it lasts"

..Interesting. The latter author points out the bible says 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it'. Apparently judgment day will come before our resources run out, so we should go ahead, reproduce as much as possible and use them up. You can see how this isn't going to work with environmentalism, can't you.

The Georgia Guidestones. One rule dictates the human population should not exceed 500,000,000 and stay in balance with nature. So the pagans say we should control our numbers, the christians say we should mulitply as much as possible and god will sort it all out when he gets back. I see an ethical shit storm brewing.
This almost 'fuck nature, we're humans!' view seems to reflect a subtle sentiment weaved into all kinds of christian messages, political decisions, and, frequent troll attacks on science websites..

..Back in the day science and Christianity were good buddies. But the day science claimed we were not the centre of the universe- and we orbited the sun- was the day science fell out of favour with Christianity. And everyday since then, as science continues to map mankind's tiny place in the universe, his evolution from the animals, and the huge physical systems beyond his control, the wider that gap grows. And science is reminded every single day of it.

FAITH VS SCIENCE
-Ignorance vs Enlightenment-

At first this looks like an extension of the last paragraph but actually, the conflict between science and religion involves a little more. Over the last 2,000 years alone, humanity has apparently fluctuated between times of 'enlightenment' (when criticism and logic have been favoured) and times of 'faith' (when 'gods word' dictated everything, and the bible was to be read literally).

Team 1: Those who like scientific thought, see technology and education as something that can help humanity achieve great things, and see faith merely holding humanity back in a state of blind ignorance, or 'darkness', as in the 'dark ages'.

Team 2: Then there are those who condemn modern technology in the name of faith- the catholic church being an excellent example. They see radical thought and change as unstable and the work of the devil, destined to bring war, unrest and 'unsaved souls' upon the world.

The clash:
To put this conflict in very literal terms, let me explain the Luciferians. That's right- people that follow lucifer. Make what you will of most of this article, i'd like to quote him to sum up this "Luciferian" view:

'God of the material world is seen as a stubborn and sadistic figure who seeks to keep mankind into perpetual darkness, while Lucifer is the savior of humanity by giving it the gift of knowledge. If we reinterpret the Adam and Eve story through Luciferian glasses, the serpent is actually the “undercover savior” who defied God and gave humans the opportunity to become gods themselves. He is credited to have unleashed man’s awesome potential.'

In short, Luciferians don't see Lucifer- the "light bringer"(hence the terms 'illuminati' and 'enlightened')- as a destroyer of humanity, but a creator of humanity.. reverse engineering the world and teaching it to mankind, breaking them away from the animals and closer to godliness. By gaining knowledge and questioning god's world, we are denying the fear and power god holds over us- the pope's worst nightmare. Science, in a religious leaders' view, is an anti-god revolution led by Satan.

Of course this isn't exclusive to religion, we see it in society everywhere because it reflects more fundamental politics: People choose to educate others. Perhaps this isn't as much faith vs reason, as a battle between those who see benefit in distributing knowledge, and those who see benefit in restricting it. And then there is the problem of how much and what knowledge is distributed or withheld. And then, the extra problem of what to replace the void left by ignorance.. something charming like superstition, or something more.. manipulative, like fear?

A cute example of the transition from ignorant peasantry to enlightened living in the modern world is here. Note the other villagers even refer to the windmills as 'witchcraft' when the crops fail..

RELIGION VS ATHEISM
-Order vs Chaos-

It is the general popular belief that order is good and chaos is evil. This is the general popular belief. There is no reason to assume, of course, that authorities and law abiders cannot do evil (think: holocaust) and the rebels and lawless cannot do good (think: robin hood). But because of the very nature of maintaining 'Order', it is important that the former is the general popular belief of the masses.

According to a recent poll, the most distrusted minority group in america are atheists. They are more distrusted than gays, muslims, and afro-americans. This is a country resident to godhatesfags.com and the KKK.
Richard Dawkins, an atheist who preaches with as much passion as even the most religious preacher, did an interview on american tv, demonstrating how american feathers are ruffled by atheism. Yes, Bill is an utter dickface, but he raises some common arguments. Hitler was an athiest! is the cry. Translation: Atheism makes people evil. Evil dictators, revolutionists, terrorists.. No wait, scratch that last one.. Even following the religion of an enemy is apparently better than not following one at all.

I get the feeling the issue here is not really as simple as religion vs non religion, It's:

Team 1: people that are trusted by a community- or heavily religious culture- because they share common values with it,
vs
Team 2: those that do not follow any traditional religious moral code, and thus seem weird or untrustworthy to team 1.

People are scared by what is not obvious to them and warm quickly to those who think and act alike. It's easy for people who've been brought up in a tight community to be brainwashed into assuming the worst of a stranger; Which, in turn, reinforces their need to demonstrate their loyalty to the communal values.. regardless of how hard they are to defend or how obvious it is their daughter is a lesbian or should really have an abortion.

The clash
So on the surface, religions appear to have 'order' pretty well pegged. They collect everyone under a single code or deity, preaching that unity brings peace. A single set of values, a single philosophy, a single vision of justice. They can decide on any rule and the masses will follow, regardless of how many steps back it takes them or how it threatens their environment.
But.. as christianity has shown, even for global mass-brainwashing religions this isnt quite so straight forward. The reality is, everyone's got their own 'vision' of justice, and in many cases, they would rather change the religion to resemble their vision than change the vision resemble the religion. And its not hard to have an excuse.. hell, divorcing your wife so you can get another is as good a reason as any.
As religion spreads, more humans take it on and go their own place with it. If religion actually brought order, history would be different. Truth is, we are adaptable creatures and as we spread, we have to adapt, and our values adapt too. Order has to be abandoned and rebuilt, or just partially abandoned altogether. Atheism is not a big leap. Maybe between chaos and order, neither extreme is possible to realistically sustain, due to the inherently unavoidable 'context sensitive' nature of human behaviour.

'News for your neurons', or those of you who have some

Right. Im fucking sick of this. I am through to the back fucking teeth.

DEAR WIRED.COM COMMENTORS,

YOUR COMMENTS FUCKING SUCK. ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID. AM I SPEAKING IN SMALL ENOUGH SENTENCES FOR YOU. CAN YOU READ THIS WITHOUT CAPS LOCK. try this. oh, you can't. SORRY I MEAN OH, YOU CAN'T. ergh, i give up already.


-Case 01-

Ok lets start with todays one. It's an article about electric fish. You know, eels & stuff. Utterly fascinating. Anyway, the comments: You probably won't believe me so i took a screenshot:


..What the hell?
"Hi guys, just in case for some reason you can't read the last 4 comments, thought i'd just let you know 100hz is a low buzz and not a high whine, even though obviously, such descriptions are entirely relative."
I can't decide if these guys have some mental condition which makes them assume Wired can only read their comments; or if they all had some extreme derren-brown-subliminal-brainwash moment and just mindlessly re-iterated the first thing they saw in their peripheral vision, instead of whatever they meant to put. Any thoughts?


-Case 02-

Ok this is one that comes up every fucking time an article contains the word evolution in it. This article is on Darwin. Yeh, can you believe a science mag did an article evolution? Oh yeh! They so went there. Wired have - and i would normally disagree with censorship, but here i think it is totally justified- removed the bulk of troll comments. Never the less, odd gems remain:

Posted by: Kyle | 02/11/09 | 9:32 pm
may i suggest you leave this kinds [sic] of topics alone. bad move wired. i am a huge fan but not with this stuff.

Posted by: Anonymous | 02/11/09 | 6:54 pm
False Teaching

Posted by: Anonymous | 02/11/09 | 8:21 pm

“— and there are lots of big, unanswered questions”. That’s why it’s a therory, [sic] not a law.

Posted by: Eternal | 02/12/09 | 12:21 am

200 years later and 64% of the American populace still realizes that intelligent design makes more sense than evolution. Only 26% of the population is so close-minded they won’t look at the evidence that doesn’t support their theory.

Posted by: Scott | 02/12/09 | 3:24 am
Science gone mad. Using scientific method, noone could be serious that evolution makes sense. Find a new theory and stop trying to be clever.

What.. the hell? What kind of magazine did these people imagine they were reading? Its got "WIRED SCIENCE" written across the top in full capitals, bright green ones at that. Were these people expecting some kind of creationist sermon? Ok so even you honestly believe your religion cannot co exist with evolution, that's not an excuse to be a moron.. right?


-Case 03-

Here's another one, that, being a SCIENCE magazine, wired cannot help but occasionally report on. It's about the environment, and how some scientists have been able to peg down environmental thresholds before human civilisation is threatened. Note, it is a SCIENCE magazine, reporting on what some scientists say they have found.



Ah, the good old 'We-armchair-readers-know-better-than-trained-scientists' brigade.. it wouldn't be a wired post without them. Again: what did they think they were reading? "Oh hey, look at this mag! they've got an article on earth science! What are they, some kind of SCIENCE MAGAZINE!?" I think you're getting my point by now.


-Case 04-

Finally, although by no means the last example- jeez, we've barely scratched the surface here- a potentially ethical article. The article basically says some scientists have found that torture is a flawed method of interrogation because stress affects recall negatively, as well as affecting memory function itself in prolonged cases. Note that the article doesn't really touch on any ethical or moral ideas about torture.
Not that wired commentors would have noticed.

Posted by: PJW11 | 09/21/09 | 1:33 pm

So torture is bad. Alrighty then, we have the moral high ground. At least until it gets blown up from underneath us. It’s like being a pacifist yet expecting a police officer to defend you if you’re being burglarized, you can’t demand security from groups willing to torture you and then pick and choose how you will be defended.

For those of you who don't speak moron, I offer a translation: "dddduuugh, cant read."

Posted by: PR3DA7OR1AL | 09/21/09 | 2:59 pm
Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions (such as seperating one from many) and the exploitation of phobias are all used TO BREAK A PERSON DOWN TO AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL.

Again: Probably cant read. Yes, torture breaks people down to an emotional level. Congratulations. Now go back and read the article again and observe what it has to say about that emotional level interfering with memory reliability. You are looking for information remember.. not emotions.. remember? Oh, maybe you just didn't care. I get the feeling your interest in torture has absolutely nothing to do with military intelligence. So why comment on the article? Just get yourself on down to your local BDSM club!


Oh, i could go on and on. Take for example, how the comments on this and this article completely disagree about wired's ulterior agenda for Apple. It's just bizarre. Where the hell do these readers come from? Maybe they should do an article about that.