(Marvin the Martian voice) People talking about "markets" doing things make me angry. So very angry.
Markets don't do a damn thing, people do. Remaking the database was essentially making a SECOND CDDB, from scratch. Just because you can explain something in terms of marketplaces doesn't make the evil go away.
It worked out okay this time only because people were so angry about what Gracenote pulled that they went out and built FreeDB. What if that had not happened? And what about all the free value Gracenote basically seized just because they could?
Bring killed by a trickery, on a multi-user system, practically always means killed by a game bug. If you were playing it on the tournament site then it's probably because of a bug in the patch they use to implement this year's "challenge."
Trickeries occur when the game notices a problem with a save file or one of the temporary level files that causes it to suspect they have been tampered with. Thus, game bugs can also cause them, although "panic" and "killed by a collapsing dungeon" are also possible responses.
It's weird to hear about how long the game has been around....
From one perspective, Nethack is a game that has changed relatively little relative to the amount of time it's been around. It is very interesting to read about the History of the game over on the Nethack Wiki (http://nethack.wikia.com/wiki/Game_history), which goes through all the major versions and explicates the features that appeared, or vanished, along with them.
Nethack's big changes came in version 3.0, with many more in 3.1. If you win the game in 3.1, then you've basically done the same thing needed to win in 3.4.3. The game has changed rather little, relative to the size of the game, since then.
But 3.0 was released in 1989, and the original Hack was written in 1985. 3.1 was released in 1993. We're now in 2006, almost 2007. For perspective, that's four years from Fenlason's Hack to the substantial play revision at the beginning of the version 3 era, and four more from that to the world update in 3.1. Since then, it's been fourteen years.
Considering that we're in 2006 and the game has changed so little, relatively speaking, one could claim that development on the game has stagnated. (I wonder if it was the passing of Dev Team coordinator Izchak Miller that was responsible for this? Alas, there are unique issues to contend with when a game is developed for so long....)
I've been playing roguelikes for about as wrong, and I stand by my statement.
I maintain that figuring out what objects are is a more interesting challenge than killing monsters, and that the monsters exist in order to force players to find out what the items do and how to use them properly, not the other way around. When you turn it around, you get just about every other fantasy combat game the world has known -- and most of those, in case you haven't noticed, suck.
All those things like skill trees, special attacks, racial advantages, etc., those are irrelevant to what truly makes roguelikes unique. This is all my opinion, you could say, but I have thought about this an awful lot. It's probably why I play more Nethack than Angband.
We may have played RLs for about the same amount of time, but I have also played hundreds, if not thousands, of other games. You have not sufficiently made your point that it has a chance of changing my mind. Whether I know, or not, what I'm talking about is a matter for debate, but the same could be said about you.
But it has the core aspects: a difficult world the player cannot survive without using items, items which are unknown at the beginning and must be discovered through experimentation, lots of unexpected interactions between those items and the monsters, and monsters that can affect the player in ways beyond mere damage.
But those are things that I emphasize the importance of in prior columns. I try not to repeat myself there, since it's easy to do in a column with a fairly narrow focus.
I won the game; killed everything, found everything, grabbed the amulet.
I hate to tell you this, but if you then died to a wand of death, you didn't win.
And if you died to a wand of death after getting the Amulet, you probably would have died later anyway because you didn't have magic resistance, which is all but essential for the endgame.
(The endgame is what happens after you escape the dungeon with the amulet....)
I'm not sure about ToME's variety, reading about the game makes it seem that, like most of the Angband descendants, it is very much a player versus monsters game, without that much else. I've made the point repeatedly in the column so far that the most interesting things about roguelikes, in the end, is the item ID system and having to figure out what things do, and the 'bands tend to greatly reduce its role in the game.
1. (Would you want to make IE for non-Windows systems) We did make versions of IE available on other operating system for a pretty long time, up through IE5 on Unix and the Mac. At the time we developed them, those offerings made sense. I don't see a good reason to make IE available on other operating systems at this time.
Then it made sense. Now, it does not make sense. I don't see a good reason to make our work on IE7 available to Mac and Linux users. They are not worth it.
2. (Why so long since IE6?) Basically because we were doing a lot of other things before we started work on IE7: a few releases of MSN Explorer, a lot of work on what turned out to be Windows Presentation Foundation, a lot of investment in what turned into IPv6 support in Windows Vista, and lot of security response, a pretty intense effort on Windows Server 2003 (and IE's "Enhanced Security Configuration"), and then a pretty intense effort on Windows XPSP2.
We've done all these other things! Instead of hiring other people to do those things, my company chose to reassign the IE people to those projects. For some reason, I dunno, I think I remember them saying "strategy" or something. No more important enemies there to drive before us, no more women there to hear lament.
3. (Fluffy question.) Fluffy answer.
4. (How does IE beat Firefox?) I think IE7 is the first browser with integrated real-time anti-phishing functionality, with an RSS platform and support for Simple List Extensions (see below), with "QuickTabs," with support for OpenSearch, and with shrink-to-fit printing on by default. In Windows Vista with Protected Mode, IE7 is the first browser to "put itself into a sandbox" and run with low privileges.
Firefox has anti-phishing (groan) technology when used with Google Toolbar. IE had it with Google Toolbar long bfore IE7. But, although there are multiple Firefox extensions that do phishing checks, IE does have it built-in first. Of course, I'm super-cautious about sites I enter my financial information into, so I might say that my browser doesn't need phishing protection bloating it up and sending in all my URLs to some mothership....
Well, let's be fair, IE *does* say that their protection respects user privacy. Although I don't have the details of their protection, that could be some good they've brought into the world. But it still seems, to me, to be more of something for a plug-in to do.
RSS, Firefox has had it for a long while, even before Live Bookmarks. QuickTabs seems to be just a CamelCase rename for a Firefox feature. Oh sure, there may be something to differentiate Firefox's tabs, but it doesn't seem to have been important to generate any outside excitement other than "OMG IE's got TABS!" And Firefox 2.0, according to Wikipedia's article on OpenSearch (as of 10/27/2006 4:31EST), does have OpenSearch -- if IE7 had it first, it was by a matter of days, and without counting the RCs as releases.
For him to crow that IE7 is the first browser to put itself into a low privilege sandbox is ludicrous. Before Internet Explorer came along a web browser was just a damn process like any other! A user --well one on a more sensible operating system that Windows at the time-- could very well run it with whatever privileges he chose! Microsoft doesn't get to congratulate themselves for solving a problem they created, dammit!
I think that during the IE7 beta process, you've seen other browser vendors copy some of these features and/or deliver add-ons for others. (IE has also delivered some functionality - like spell-checking in forms or in-line find, as add-ons; you can read more here.
They can indeed work, and have worked in the past. Just ask Proctor and Gamble.
If a company takes some controversial practice that upsets enough people that they boycott, then it does not have to drive the company into unprofitability to be effective. Sony has a duty to its stockholders to maximize profits? They aren't getting as much of those as they could be if people are purposely avoiding their products simply because Sony is selling them.
The things that make it difficult for a boycott against Sony to build up steam to the point where it could be effective are: - Sony is a conglomerate of a different nature than P&G, they are in many businesses that are not readily identified with Sony, of varying degrees of evil. Lots of people use Sony products who will not know about the boycott, or care about Lik-Sang. It could severely affect, however, their video game business, on which the future of the company is being staked. Lots of the culture of the United States, ultimately, has its source in Sony, which means to completely boycott them would mean leading a somewhat monkish existence. Which I'm sure will come as no great change for us Slashdotters. - The will of the fairly anarchic geek community. "Yeah, I hate Sony with da passion and I'd certainly never by-- oh look Spiderman 3 is coming out!" It's harder to get geeks riled up to, say, Moral Majority or George W. levels of ire because they're so --don't laugh-- reasonable on the average. They must be more certain a drastic action is right before they'll take it, and are more capable than the average of deciding its rightness for themselves. - Bullheadedness at Sony. The boycotters must be willing to accept that, if a boycott does significantly affect Sony's profits, then it has worked even if Sony rides that boycott all the way down the drain. - The popular perception that boycotts don't work. I'm doing my bit to help against that, right now.
Grandparent: i plug in a USB stick nothing happens,
Parent: Unbelievably not true. Not only does Linux itself handle USB drives seamlessly, but most distros automount it, and KDE automagically recognizes it and asks you what you want to do with it.
I just wanted to chime in that parent is correct. Recently a friend's laptop's main hard drive started to fail, so they put a new drive into it, but bought a USB enclosure for their original hard drive so they could get the data off of it. Interestingly, it refused all attempts to make it work correctly under WinXP (it kept complaining about some error and froze the OS), but it worked beautifully from a LiveCD of Kubuntu.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but the major antivirus companies, especially Symantec, have had this coming for a looo-hooong time.
Most virus writers have moved on to even more damaging (trojans, worms) or lucrative (malware) attacks by now, that the major checkers are either too slow to protect against or, in the case of malware, outright refuse to unless the user buys a new product. Meanwhile even Microsoft Word now contains some built-in anti-virus measures, all the major webmail providers have built-in virus scanning, and many new computers don't even HAVE floppy disks.
This is not to discount the dangers of viruses, mind. My dad once took a new computer back to the store because of a virus on it that simulated a memory parity error, and boy was I EVER mad about that. But that was a 486DX running at 66mHz running Windows 3.1, and that was my last personal experience with viruses. They are just not the threat it once was, yet to listen to these guys, you'd think the world was about to explode, constantly, forever.
McAfee was the company that mongered much fear a few years ago about a JPEG virus that was going around. Remember that one?
Symantec is so anxious that people continue to subscribe to their highly lucrative virus definition service that they'll use any combination of the words "Urgent" and "Recommended," and red and boldface text attributes, to get people to pony up for another year of protection they probably don't need, and Microsoft themselves is a major contributor to this funding source by including that little Security Center taskbar icon to nag users into putting antivirus software on their machine.
Antivirus software is the kind of thing that should be provided by the OS manufacturer for free, because it makes the OS more secure. Windows could certainly use more of that.
Not only is Jumpman one of the games that could specifically be brought to Wii by this very deal (published by Epyx), it's one of the Commodore games that still holds up well today. There's thirty levels in the thing, and every damn one of them has a different challenge than the others. There are levels with robots that follow rote paths, levels with bats chasing the player around, a couple of levels that give the player a gun but remove the ability to jump, levels where picking up objects makes ladders and platforms disappear, levels where they make them appear, a level where parts of the maze are invisible until the player gets close to them (and there are four different versions of that levels to make it tough to memorize!) and even a level where the player's jumps destroy small bits of the level at his feat. It's just absolutely great all though.
Epyx also published the original PC version of Rogue....
Right. But in that position, where you've got an established audience of certainly thousands of people at least, there has to be some responsibility for what you lead those people to do.
Your statement boils down to censorship of humor.
Even if you're not serious. The thing is, they're not serious, either. Colbert put the idea forward as a big joke - and people went along with it because they wanted to be part of the joke.
Then the responsibility resides with the people who performed that action.
Regardless of the intent, the effect was that he encouraged people to vandalize Wikipedia.
Comedians, some of them great, have, in the past, "advocated" all kinds of things, including defrauding the government, the taking of illicit substances, violence against women, and even genocide. What you are really advocating is political correctness.
The effect was something that he must have known was a possibility, and should have been responsible enough to avoid.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Couching statements as part of a shell of caution is poison to comedy!
Using his audience to make this happen, whether by intent or by negligence, is just plain rude.
Even though you say "whether by intent or ignorance," your words "to make his happen" imply intent which I think there is no reason to assume. And if there was no intent, then what happened can best be described as an accident, which is not rude, just unfortunate.
The thing is, even if it was a joke, it encouraged people to vandalize Wikipedia.
The entire point of the show is what he says is not really what he means. Bender (singing, from dictionary): "The use of words expressing something of the other than the literal intention. Now that... IS... irony!!"
Slashdot Mirror
(Marvin the Martian voice) People talking about "markets" doing things make me angry. So very angry.
Markets don't do a damn thing, people do. Remaking the database was essentially making a SECOND CDDB, from scratch. Just because you can explain something in terms of marketplaces doesn't make the evil go away.
It worked out okay this time only because people were so angry about what Gracenote pulled that they went out and built FreeDB. What if that had not happened? And what about all the free value Gracenote basically seized just because they could?
God, if only I lived in a world in which that were likely....
Unfortunately, if Nintendo pays them, then they have basically given permission for their illegal behavior. I do not think that will happen, alas.
Bring killed by a trickery, on a multi-user system, practically always means killed by a game bug. If you were playing it on the tournament site then it's probably because of a bug in the patch they use to implement this year's "challenge."
Trickeries occur when the game notices a problem with a save file or one of the temporary level files that causes it to suspect they have been tampered with. Thus, game bugs can also cause them, although "panic" and "killed by a collapsing dungeon" are also possible responses.
It's weird to hear about how long the game has been around....
From one perspective, Nethack is a game that has changed relatively little relative to the amount of time it's been around. It is very interesting to read about the History of the game over on the Nethack Wiki (http://nethack.wikia.com/wiki/Game_history), which goes through all the major versions and explicates the features that appeared, or vanished, along with them.
Nethack's big changes came in version 3.0, with many more in 3.1. If you win the game in 3.1, then you've basically done the same thing needed to win in 3.4.3. The game has changed rather little, relative to the size of the game, since then.
But 3.0 was released in 1989, and the original Hack was written in 1985. 3.1 was released in 1993. We're now in 2006, almost 2007. For perspective, that's four years from Fenlason's Hack to the substantial play revision at the beginning of the version 3 era, and four more from that to the world update in 3.1. Since then, it's been fourteen years.
Considering that we're in 2006 and the game has changed so little, relatively speaking, one could claim that development on the game has stagnated. (I wonder if it was the passing of Dev Team coordinator Izchak Miller that was responsible for this? Alas, there are unique issues to contend with when a game is developed for so long....)
I've been playing roguelikes for about as wrong, and I stand by my statement.
I maintain that figuring out what objects are is a more interesting challenge than killing monsters, and that the monsters exist in order to force players to find out what the items do and how to use them properly, not the other way around. When you turn it around, you get just about every other fantasy combat game the world has known -- and most of those, in case you haven't noticed, suck.
All those things like skill trees, special attacks, racial advantages, etc., those are irrelevant to what truly makes roguelikes unique. This is all my opinion, you could say, but I have thought about this an awful lot. It's probably why I play more Nethack than Angband.
We may have played RLs for about the same amount of time, but I have also played hundreds, if not thousands, of other games. You have not sufficiently made your point that it has a chance of changing my mind. Whether I know, or not, what I'm talking about is a matter for debate, but the same could be said about you.
But it has the core aspects: a difficult world the player cannot survive without using items, items which are unknown at the beginning and must be discovered through experimentation, lots of unexpected interactions between those items and the monsters, and monsters that can affect the player in ways beyond mere damage.
But those are things that I emphasize the importance of in prior columns. I try not to repeat myself there, since it's easy to do in a column with a fairly narrow focus.
I won the game; killed everything, found everything, grabbed the amulet.
I hate to tell you this, but if you then died to a wand of death, you didn't win.
And if you died to a wand of death after getting the Amulet, you probably would have died later anyway because you didn't have magic resistance, which is all but essential for the endgame.
(The endgame is what happens after you escape the dungeon with the amulet....)
Raisse hangs out in rec.games.roguelike.nethack. Doesn't post as much as used to, but when they do show up they're often a high point of the thread.
Google Groups is an okay way to read and post there if you don't have an account with an ISP that provides USENET.
I've played the game enough now that I can see you're correct... once you know the right strategies.
A game with a lot of buzz around it lately is Dungeon Crawl. I've not looked at it yet though.
I'm not sure about ToME's variety, reading about the game makes it seem that, like most of the Angband descendants, it is very much a player versus monsters game, without that much else. I've made the point repeatedly in the column so far that the most interesting things about roguelikes, in the end, is the item ID system and having to figure out what things do, and the 'bands tend to greatly reduce its role in the game.
I covered this last column, on ToeJam & Earl, which contains many roguelike elements but is indeed in real time and has a multiplayer mode:
e arl_the_roguelik_1.php#more
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/10/_play_toejam_
There is a great deal of spin in these answers.
1. (Would you want to make IE for non-Windows systems)
We did make versions of IE available on other operating system for a pretty long time, up through IE5 on Unix and the Mac. At the time we developed them, those offerings made sense. I don't see a good reason to make IE available on other operating systems at this time.
Then it made sense. Now, it does not make sense. I don't see a good reason to make our work on IE7 available to Mac and Linux users. They are not worth it.
2. (Why so long since IE6?)
Basically because we were doing a lot of other things before we started work on IE7: a few releases of MSN Explorer, a lot of work on what turned out to be Windows Presentation Foundation, a lot of investment in what turned into IPv6 support in Windows Vista, and lot of security response, a pretty intense effort on Windows Server 2003 (and IE's "Enhanced Security Configuration"), and then a pretty intense effort on Windows XPSP2.
We've done all these other things! Instead of hiring other people to do those things, my company chose to reassign the IE people to those projects. For some reason, I dunno, I think I remember them saying "strategy" or something. No more important enemies there to drive before us, no more women there to hear lament.
3. (Fluffy question.)
Fluffy answer.
4. (How does IE beat Firefox?)
I think IE7 is the first browser with integrated real-time anti-phishing functionality, with an RSS platform and support for Simple List Extensions (see below), with "QuickTabs," with support for OpenSearch, and with shrink-to-fit printing on by default. In Windows Vista with Protected Mode, IE7 is the first browser to "put itself into a sandbox" and run with low privileges.
Buzzword! Buzzword buzzword? BUZZWORD!
Buzzword uses Snowjob! It's super-effective!
Firefox has anti-phishing (groan) technology when used with Google Toolbar. IE had it with Google Toolbar long bfore IE7. But, although there are multiple Firefox extensions that do phishing checks, IE does have it built-in first. Of course, I'm super-cautious about sites I enter my financial information into, so I might say that my browser doesn't need phishing protection bloating it up and sending in all my URLs to some mothership....
Well, let's be fair, IE *does* say that their protection respects user privacy. Although I don't have the details of their protection, that could be some good they've brought into the world. But it still seems, to me, to be more of something for a plug-in to do.
RSS, Firefox has had it for a long while, even before Live Bookmarks. QuickTabs seems to be just a CamelCase rename for a Firefox feature. Oh sure, there may be something to differentiate Firefox's tabs, but it doesn't seem to have been important to generate any outside excitement other than "OMG IE's got TABS!" And Firefox 2.0, according to Wikipedia's article on OpenSearch (as of 10/27/2006 4:31EST), does have OpenSearch -- if IE7 had it first, it was by a matter of days, and without counting the RCs as releases.
For him to crow that IE7 is the first browser to put itself into a low privilege sandbox is ludicrous. Before Internet Explorer came along a web browser was just a damn process like any other! A user --well one on a more sensible operating system that Windows at the time-- could very well run it with whatever privileges he chose! Microsoft doesn't get to congratulate themselves for solving a problem they created, dammit!
I think that during the IE7 beta process, you've seen other browser vendors copy some of these features and/or deliver add-ons for others. (IE has also delivered some functionality - like spell-checking in forms or in-line find, as add-ons; you can read more here.
I'
They can indeed work, and have worked in the past. Just ask Proctor and Gamble.
If a company takes some controversial practice that upsets enough people that they boycott, then it does not have to drive the company into unprofitability to be effective. Sony has a duty to its stockholders to maximize profits? They aren't getting as much of those as they could be if people are purposely avoiding their products simply because Sony is selling them.
The things that make it difficult for a boycott against Sony to build up steam to the point where it could be effective are:
- Sony is a conglomerate of a different nature than P&G, they are in many businesses that are not readily identified with Sony, of varying degrees of evil. Lots of people use Sony products who will not know about the boycott, or care about Lik-Sang. It could severely affect, however, their video game business, on which the future of the company is being staked. Lots of the culture of the United States, ultimately, has its source in Sony, which means to completely boycott them would mean leading a somewhat monkish existence. Which I'm sure will come as no great change for us Slashdotters.
- The will of the fairly anarchic geek community. "Yeah, I hate Sony with da passion and I'd certainly never by-- oh look Spiderman 3 is coming out!" It's harder to get geeks riled up to, say, Moral Majority or George W. levels of ire because they're so --don't laugh-- reasonable on the average. They must be more certain a drastic action is right before they'll take it, and are more capable than the average of deciding its rightness for themselves.
- Bullheadedness at Sony. The boycotters must be willing to accept that, if a boycott does significantly affect Sony's profits, then it has worked even if Sony rides that boycott all the way down the drain.
- The popular perception that boycotts don't work. I'm doing my bit to help against that, right now.
Grandparent: i plug in a USB stick nothing happens,
Parent: Unbelievably not true. Not only does Linux itself handle USB drives seamlessly, but most distros automount it, and KDE automagically recognizes it and asks you what you want to do with it.
I just wanted to chime in that parent is correct. Recently a friend's laptop's main hard drive started to fail, so they put a new drive into it, but bought a USB enclosure for their original hard drive so they could get the data off of it. Interestingly, it refused all attempts to make it work correctly under WinXP (it kept complaining about some error and froze the OS), but it worked beautifully from a LiveCD of Kubuntu.
Anonymous Coward claiming to own a web hosting firm saying he picked a different OS because of SCO's claims against Linux.
Chance of astroturfing: moderate to high.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but the major antivirus companies, especially Symantec, have had this coming for a looo-hooong time.
Most virus writers have moved on to even more damaging (trojans, worms) or lucrative (malware) attacks by now, that the major checkers are either too slow to protect against or, in the case of malware, outright refuse to unless the user buys a new product. Meanwhile even Microsoft Word now contains some built-in anti-virus measures, all the major webmail providers have built-in virus scanning, and many new computers don't even HAVE floppy disks.
This is not to discount the dangers of viruses, mind. My dad once took a new computer back to the store because of a virus on it that simulated a memory parity error, and boy was I EVER mad about that. But that was a 486DX running at 66mHz running Windows 3.1, and that was my last personal experience with viruses. They are just not the threat it once was, yet to listen to these guys, you'd think the world was about to explode, constantly, forever.
McAfee was the company that mongered much fear a few years ago about a JPEG virus that was going around. Remember that one?
Symantec is so anxious that people continue to subscribe to their highly lucrative virus definition service that they'll use any combination of the words "Urgent" and "Recommended," and red and boldface text attributes, to get people to pony up for another year of protection they probably don't need, and Microsoft themselves is a major contributor to this funding source by including that little Security Center taskbar icon to nag users into putting antivirus software on their machine.
Antivirus software is the kind of thing that should be provided by the OS manufacturer for free, because it makes the OS more secure. Windows could certainly use more of that.
Not only is Jumpman one of the games that could specifically be brought to Wii by this very deal (published by Epyx), it's one of the Commodore games that still holds up well today. There's thirty levels in the thing, and every damn one of them has a different challenge than the others. There are levels with robots that follow rote paths, levels with bats chasing the player around, a couple of levels that give the player a gun but remove the ability to jump, levels where picking up objects makes ladders and platforms disappear, levels where they make them appear, a level where parts of the maze are invisible until the player gets close to them (and there are four different versions of that levels to make it tough to memorize!) and even a level where the player's jumps destroy small bits of the level at his feat. It's just absolutely great all though.
Epyx also published the original PC version of Rogue....
Seconded. The NES version is so much worse than the home computer versions that there's an aspect of travesty to it.
The Dreamcast, however, has an excellent homebrew Atari 800 emulator, and with its four controller ports....
I'm surprised no one's mentioned yet that the DS version is infamous for having been pushed out the door early, containing many troublesome bugs. The gaming blogs have been sniping about it for days.
Oh it's still FUD. It's just aimed at his own head!
It's third party games that won't be able to use Nintendo Wi-Fi right away. First- and second-party games are not so encumbered.
Right. But in that position, where you've got an established audience of certainly thousands of people at least, there has to be some responsibility for what you lead those people to do.
Your statement boils down to censorship of humor.
Even if you're not serious. The thing is, they're not serious, either. Colbert put the idea forward as a big joke - and people went along with it because they wanted to be part of the joke.
Then the responsibility resides with the people who performed that action.
Regardless of the intent, the effect was that he encouraged people to vandalize Wikipedia.
Comedians, some of them great, have, in the past, "advocated" all kinds of things, including defrauding the government, the taking of illicit substances, violence against women, and even genocide. What you are really advocating is political correctness.
The effect was something that he must have known was a possibility, and should have been responsible enough to avoid.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Couching statements as part of a shell of caution is poison to comedy!
Using his audience to make this happen, whether by intent or by negligence, is just plain rude.
Even though you say "whether by intent or ignorance," your words "to make his happen" imply intent which I think there is no reason to assume. And if there was no intent, then what happened can best be described as an accident, which is not rude, just unfortunate.
I bought the one for The Fifth Element. Best line goes something like this:
"Imagine what it'd be like to make out with Milla Jovovich and get a mental image of Carrot Top. Talk about 'collapsing the circus tent'."
The thing is, even if it was a joke, it encouraged people to vandalize Wikipedia.
The entire point of the show is what he says is not really what he means. Bender (singing, from dictionary): "The use of words expressing something of the other than the literal intention. Now that... IS... irony!!"
No, I do not accept this. Take that to its logical conclusion and you claim sarcasm is evil.