I had the same when I arrived in Sydney. Someone asked "brought your thongs?", and all I could say back was "what, my leatherette g-string and leopard skin pouch?"
Ah, but doesn't it just smack of those 80's calculator watches that everybody seemed to have simply because they could? It seems to be the opposite direction of the way the current trends are going anyway - basically phones are having more and more functionality added (Symbian for a start), whereas this wearing lark seems to be stripping it out. I'm not complaining, it's nice to see some diversity in the market.
I'm pretty sure that the technical improvement, the result of pumping millions of dollars on research, didn't end up in "aaah, just stick it in a leatherette pouch and put your belt through it..."
There were reports on The Register, concerning wearable media: Motorola Showcases Watch Phone and Unix on a wristwatch.
How important is functionality on your arm to the general public? Note, on your arm it becomes useable with only one hand. How much info could realistically be displayed, and how functional would a phone in a watch actually be?
All those sci-fi shows show people talking at them in the style of a video - where is the privacy? It's all well and good when you're on Omnicron-8, but on the train, heading towards Slough, it's going to be a bit of a piss-take.
Gimme the 6600 any day, I don't care if it is a brick, I can get my fist-like fingers to press the buttons!
What with anti-privacy king, David Blunkett, about to try and force everyone to use ID cards (in much the same way that Australia did - and failed). Now, I have nothing to hide, and don't actually mind a certain amount of data gathering (if it actually benefits me in the long run), but this ID card business is making that red flag wave quite vigorously.
So, I don't think the need to identify yourself to police "if they have a reasonable cause for suspicion" is a particular violation of human rights, but having everything you do traced via an electronic chip is. After all, I've never heard of a case where, after being asked by PC Plod "what is your name?", the target simply answers "Not telling".
What would be the point of not identifying yourself, and under what kind of circumstances would you want to do so?
Exactly. Why miss out on classics such as Micro Machines/Micro Maniacs, where the graphical quality is adequate? - they are really social games and the graphical quality doesn't matter so much when you're laughing so hard with a few beers.
However, when the PS2 came out, the last thing I wanted to do was keep scrambling behind the TV to reconnect the PS1 or PS2 depending on whether it was Micro Machines or Tony Hawks I was wanting to play.
Gamers who define a game's quality by its graphical effects will buy the XBox 2 in droves, and they're welcome to it. I, however, will patiently wait for the PS3, keep my fingers crossed that they take the same tactical decision to support the older games, and keep playing games that don't have quite the latest, fanciest effect, yet somehow give me better value for money.
I thought Blaster was a RPC virus, i.e. not one broacast via email? I'm sure that's the one that got me a couple of times before I installed a decent firewall (you have 5 seconds to close all work...).
Bloody swine of a thing it was - I'd always seem to be winning at Counterstrike too! (Well, that was my excuse, anyway)
I think you're taking it out of its context completely. I don't think racism comes into it at all (he does have other characters that do not have any kind of "ethnic" background to them, and I don't consider his gay character to be a homophobic standpoint). Nobody said it was politically correct, but I highly doubt a racist intent.
After a brief look at the Crossballs website, it sounds very much like it's a version of the UK's The Day Today (Chris Morris), and Brass Eye (again Chris Morris). These programmes take the concept of "current affairs", and then parody this.
The difference, however, (as far as I can see) is that Brass Eye etc tend to have a good stance as their founding, i.e. to target the media's mass-hysteria around particular subjects (especially drug use, paedophiles etc), and mock not only their shock-tactic approach to manipulating the public, but also mock the approach that "celebrity" take when trying to advocate their own standpoints (to the point where they'll make any given "scientific" statement to make them out to be a positive public influence on the matter).
This show, however, seems to make its comedy focus as simply a vehicle for the public humiliation of known experts in a given field. How they do this, I don't know (having never seen the show), so I cannot comment on its extremity, but it does seem somewhat cruel without a differing message to counteract it.
But the thing about shows such as Ali G is that even though the "victims" may not always be famous, it is definitely a self-parody. The person being interviewed is not intended to be humiliated, because Ali (and Borat) both come out looking worse.
However, with a league of "trained actors", intended to look real, it is more a case of entrapment - more akin to Brass Eye. For example, Dr Fox (Pop Idol judge in the UK), on the subject of Paedophilia - "Paedophiles actually have more in common with crabs than with humans. There's no scientific proof for this, but it's FACT". Or when, in a debate style forum, he [Chris Morris, the show's creator] tries to bait someone into the difference between "Good AIDS and Bad AIDS". It's funny when it's celebrity, I suppose, but fooling common-or-garden people, with careers at stake, isn't quite as funny because there's no public context to it.
It depends on the context and the position. If I'm employing a coder, and some kid walks in through the door then I'm going to look at his degree. If someone more "mature" walks in, then I'm going to go straight to the experience, beause this is what is going to be more relevant.
How could they possibly forget The Transformers??! They should immediately throw out the entire list and populate it with the likes of Optimus Prime (now you don't get many people changing their names to R2D2 now, do you?), Bumblebee and Megatron! (The title is a badly formed attempt at making the noise when they transform)
However, they have to leave just one gap for No-No from Ulysses 31. And that other robot that was at the end of Battle of the Planets (the UK version).
Yup. It's sa if you pressed shift. It's basically a scam to get novice users to automatically react and press OK without questioning why the CD they have just lovingly bought should be any different to the others they have in their collections.
Good lord no! Bob The Builder got to number 1. Mr Blobby got to number one. Endless Pap/American/Australian Idles get to number 1 (Michelle McMannus anyone?). Worth buying? No. Worth burning and then burying 60 feet under the earth (preferably along with Simon Cowell)? Most definitely.
I've not found one yet that installs without saying anything. Normally it says "this CD needs to install an upgrade to function" (or something along those lines), with a cancel button. Pressing cancel stops the install.
Perhaps they've only done that on EU ones though. I'd be bloody livid if I found soemthing sneakily installed.
I thought this kind of copy protection screwed up Macs? Wasn't there a case where several people had to take their iMacs back to the shop because Natalie Imbruglia's White Lillies Island completely disabled the drive? God, just imagine having that trash stuck in your computer permanently...
Slashdot Mirror
I had the same when I arrived in Sydney. Someone asked "brought your thongs?", and all I could say back was "what, my leatherette g-string and leopard skin pouch?"
Ah, but doesn't it just smack of those 80's calculator watches that everybody seemed to have simply because they could? It seems to be the opposite direction of the way the current trends are going anyway - basically phones are having more and more functionality added (Symbian for a start), whereas this wearing lark seems to be stripping it out. I'm not complaining, it's nice to see some diversity in the market.
I'm pretty sure that the technical improvement, the result of pumping millions of dollars on research, didn't end up in "aaah, just stick it in a leatherette pouch and put your belt through it..."
Depends if it's one of those super new white ones, that say "iPod" on them.
There were reports on The Register, concerning wearable media: Motorola Showcases Watch Phone and Unix on a wristwatch. How important is functionality on your arm to the general public? Note, on your arm it becomes useable with only one hand. How much info could realistically be displayed, and how functional would a phone in a watch actually be?
All those sci-fi shows show people talking at them in the style of a video - where is the privacy? It's all well and good when you're on Omnicron-8, but on the train, heading towards Slough, it's going to be a bit of a piss-take.
Gimme the 6600 any day, I don't care if it is a brick, I can get my fist-like fingers to press the buttons!
What with anti-privacy king, David Blunkett, about to try and force everyone to use ID cards (in much the same way that Australia did - and failed). Now, I have nothing to hide, and don't actually mind a certain amount of data gathering (if it actually benefits me in the long run), but this ID card business is making that red flag wave quite vigorously.
So, I don't think the need to identify yourself to police "if they have a reasonable cause for suspicion" is a particular violation of human rights, but having everything you do traced via an electronic chip is. After all, I've never heard of a case where, after being asked by PC Plod "what is your name?", the target simply answers "Not telling".
What would be the point of not identifying yourself, and under what kind of circumstances would you want to do so?
Will it still only have one mouse button? Sorry.
Exactly. Why miss out on classics such as Micro Machines/Micro Maniacs, where the graphical quality is adequate? - they are really social games and the graphical quality doesn't matter so much when you're laughing so hard with a few beers.
However, when the PS2 came out, the last thing I wanted to do was keep scrambling behind the TV to reconnect the PS1 or PS2 depending on whether it was Micro Machines or Tony Hawks I was wanting to play.
Gamers who define a game's quality by its graphical effects will buy the XBox 2 in droves, and they're welcome to it. I, however, will patiently wait for the PS3, keep my fingers crossed that they take the same tactical decision to support the older games, and keep playing games that don't have quite the latest, fanciest effect, yet somehow give me better value for money.
There was one, and it caused a mass of problems itself. It was called Welchia, and you can read The Register article here.
I thought Blaster was a RPC virus, i.e. not one broacast via email? I'm sure that's the one that got me a couple of times before I installed a decent firewall (you have 5 seconds to close all work...). Bloody swine of a thing it was - I'd always seem to be winning at Counterstrike too! (Well, that was my excuse, anyway)
I think you're taking it out of its context completely. I don't think racism comes into it at all (he does have other characters that do not have any kind of "ethnic" background to them, and I don't consider his gay character to be a homophobic standpoint). Nobody said it was politically correct, but I highly doubt a racist intent.
After a brief look at the Crossballs website, it sounds very much like it's a version of the UK's The Day Today (Chris Morris), and Brass Eye (again Chris Morris). These programmes take the concept of "current affairs", and then parody this.
The difference, however, (as far as I can see) is that Brass Eye etc tend to have a good stance as their founding, i.e. to target the media's mass-hysteria around particular subjects (especially drug use, paedophiles etc), and mock not only their shock-tactic approach to manipulating the public, but also mock the approach that "celebrity" take when trying to advocate their own standpoints (to the point where they'll make any given "scientific" statement to make them out to be a positive public influence on the matter).
This show, however, seems to make its comedy focus as simply a vehicle for the public humiliation of known experts in a given field. How they do this, I don't know (having never seen the show), so I cannot comment on its extremity, but it does seem somewhat cruel without a differing message to counteract it.
But the thing about shows such as Ali G is that even though the "victims" may not always be famous, it is definitely a self-parody. The person being interviewed is not intended to be humiliated, because Ali (and Borat) both come out looking worse.
However, with a league of "trained actors", intended to look real, it is more a case of entrapment - more akin to Brass Eye. For example, Dr Fox (Pop Idol judge in the UK), on the subject of Paedophilia - "Paedophiles actually have more in common with crabs than with humans. There's no scientific proof for this, but it's FACT". Or when, in a debate style forum, he [Chris Morris, the show's creator] tries to bait someone into the difference between "Good AIDS and Bad AIDS". It's funny when it's celebrity, I suppose, but fooling common-or-garden people, with careers at stake, isn't quite as funny because there's no public context to it.
It depends on the context and the position. If I'm employing a coder, and some kid walks in through the door then I'm going to look at his degree. If someone more "mature" walks in, then I'm going to go straight to the experience, beause this is what is going to be more relevant.
That's quite possibly the funniest thing I've read all day. (Along with the YOU ARE DENSE bit futher down.)
How could they possibly forget The Transformers??! They should immediately throw out the entire list and populate it with the likes of Optimus Prime (now you don't get many people changing their names to R2D2 now, do you?), Bumblebee and Megatron! (The title is a badly formed attempt at making the noise when they transform)
However, they have to leave just one gap for No-No from Ulysses 31. And that other robot that was at the end of Battle of the Planets (the UK version).
Is that the one with the tennis-racket arms? That was bloody funny, that was.
Radiohead does Stephen Hawking. Robotic in a way, but not quite.
Yup. It's sa if you pressed shift. It's basically a scam to get novice users to automatically react and press OK without questioning why the CD they have just lovingly bought should be any different to the others they have in their collections.
Silly users.
Since it's selling, it must be worth buying.
Good lord no! Bob The Builder got to number 1. Mr Blobby got to number one. Endless Pap/American/Australian Idles get to number 1 (Michelle McMannus anyone?). Worth buying? No. Worth burning and then burying 60 feet under the earth (preferably along with Simon Cowell)? Most definitely.
I've not found one yet that installs without saying anything. Normally it says "this CD needs to install an upgrade to function" (or something along those lines), with a cancel button. Pressing cancel stops the install.
Perhaps they've only done that on EU ones though. I'd be bloody livid if I found soemthing sneakily installed.
Not sure why I got moderated as being a troll for that. Alas.
I was assuming the latter part of your argument. And we all know that "when you assume, it makes an ass out of u and me". (Groan)
I thought this kind of copy protection screwed up Macs? Wasn't there a case where several people had to take their iMacs back to the shop because Natalie Imbruglia's White Lillies Island completely disabled the drive? God, just imagine having that trash stuck in your computer permanently...
But wouldn;t that be anti-competitive for other companies that sell on-line music, such as Napster?