Apple basically launched the "era of touch"... maybe with a little help from Nintendo. Yet "personal satisfaction" is the only compansation they get for getting us there.
Yeah, it's a real shame that they didn't benefit in terms of gaining a very significant market share or by making tons of money by selling countless iPhones. Poor Apple!
Seriously, what on *earth* are you on that you think Apple hasn't received significant reward for the iPhone's success?! Sheesh.
Probably not... I remember when TV's had VCR's built in.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I'll assume that you're saying that TV/VCR combos were never *that* common, or at least not as common as one might have guessed they'd have become beforehand.
But that's because there were a number of issues- they typically cost around the same as a separate TV and video, back when video recorders were still moderately expensive, but had the disadvantage of tying the two together (e.g. if the video broke and had to be fixed you lost your TV too) and were frequently inferior (e.g. just one tuner so you couldn't record one channel and watch another).
Streaming players are already much cheaper and likely to get cheaper still, since solid-state microchip-based technology is much better at doing that than mechanical video recorders... but that also makes it a no-brainer to slap it into a TV as an extra feature once the chipset gets dirt-cheap (or the functionality is easily able to be included as part of the standard chipset anyway).
...if your target metric is trendoid self-absorbed hipsters.
No kidding... shortly after I first heard about FourSquare and realised that it *hadn't* actually been made up by The Onion, the first thing I thought was "that's... *very* Nathan Barley".
Pecantically, it's more like a slightly smarter version of Nathan Barley from the early-2000s grew up a bit (without becoming any more likeable) and decided to make some money by exploiting today's early-twentysomething, wannabe narcissistic tossers, i.e. the Nathan Barley: The Next Generations.
If it is him I can say it all I like, I'm in Scotland and the order doesn't apply here.
I suspect they didn't bother getting an order in Scotland, because they know that the only football (and footballers) the Scottish media are interested in are Celtic and Rangers. And Rangers and Celtic. And Celtic and Celtic and Rangers and Rangers.
Which is fair enough- everyone knows there's nothing more to Scottish football than the west coast's favourite sectarian proxies and their endless inflicting of a Glasgow-centric view on the rest of the country.
FWIW, that's why I think that this story must have been broken by a naive English journalist working for the Herald who didn't understand the above *very important* rules. Damn foreigners coming in and upsetting our navel-gazing insular bigoted footballing concerns....
Although I live in the UK, I wasn't that interested in the alleged identity of the person, so I wasn't actively going digging or setting out to find out who it was anyway.
Still, while signing on to the UK Yahoo website to check one of my mail accounts, at the top of their "TRENDING NOW" list shown on the portal page was the name of a well-known British footballer which was a borderline dead-giveaway for me (unless some other story I didn't know about had gained massive prominence overnight).
Do I really care about that he's had an affair in itself? No, I couldn't give a toss. If this had just been something that had appeared on the front page of The Sun, I probably wouldn't have noticed and even if I had I wouldn't have cared. (I don't read The Sun partly because (a) who gives a **** who some celebrity slept with and (b) Rupert Murdoch can go DIAF).
I'd say it was more interesting that- despite having been around for donkeys years and now at the age where most top-flight players are winding down their careers at more obscure clubs, if not actively retired- he's still appparently playing top flight football for the same team he's been in for the past 20 years. Which is due some kind of respect anyway...
Eh.... I know it's obviously tongue-in-cheek, but that article doesn't really work on its own terms.
Problem is that they give scientifically-plausible reasons about how their bodies can't heal themselves due to damage, their lack of circulation means the cold would damage them, ditto heat (which would cause putrefaction or mummification), maggots would eat them etc.
Yet it relies on accepting the basic premise of the stereotypical zombie- that something that was already in a "dead" and decomposing state would still (somehow) be capable of supporting life, let alone actually moving about in an animated manner. Problem is that if you accept Cracked's analysis- even as an intellectual joke- you can't really then dismiss very similar reasons why zombies shouldn't exist in the first place!
How many people got educated about what to do in a disaster because they thought, "Oh, zombies, lulz!"
That's ironic, because I honestly *didn't* read the article for the same reason- I thought it was just yet another entry on the pretend-serious joke "zombie apocalypse" bandwagon, which is starting to become overdone to the point of cliche.
Too many people end up with TV screens so large that the individual pixels become annoyingly visible. HD mitigates this, but most channels still use SD.
Pick a TV screen size that's appropriate for your viewing distance, instead of the bigger == better fallacy.
Don't listen to this idiot, he's got it the wrong way around. Pick as big a screen as you damn well want *then* pick a viewing distance that's appropriate for your TV screen size.
Personally, I chose the biggest screen I could get my hands on (having sold my house to pay for it) and yeah, it looks like ass from a few metres away, but I solved the problem by installing it in the field half a mile down the road from my house and watching through the living room window.
All my friends were impressed until the people who now own the house threw me out, but er.... the principle still stands.
I can't possibly the only one who decided instantly not to buy from Sony any more. Okay, I admit, Sony-exclusive stuff will still probably draw me in, if it's good.
Yeah, got to love the way that your typical Slashdotter always proclaims their principles loudly and states their commitment to a boycott... until push comes to shove, reality dawns and anything *remotely* approaching self-sacrifice would be required (i.e. foregoing EvilCorp's latest instalment of Fanboy Franchise). In which case there's plenty of backtracking and a convenient get-out clause that shows just how wishy-washy they were in the first place.
Oooh... you might be more likely to buy some discounted second-tier game on XBox (lemme guess, unless the PS3 version has much prettier graphics)? I bet the Sony execs are *quaking* in their boots at the thought! Especially as you'll probably have forgotten about your vague boycott two weeks from now.
Kolibri OS is not 8 bit mister "I don't read before replying" or use his brain.
What makes your childish reponse more laughable and ironic is that if *you'd* been paying attention, you'd notice that the section quoted did not include mention of the Kolibri OS, because I wasn't replying to that, but specifically the part about the 8-bit Commodore 64. Is that clear enough for you "mister"?!
That said, I *did* investigate Kolibri OS after you mentioned it. Regardless of how tightly it is coded, or how suitable it would be for running Facebook's server code, it does *not* follow that because the OS itself is efficiently-written, that all apps will automatically be so too.
And the "8-bit" coding style critique I made referred to the philosophy, which *could* be applied to 32 and 64-bit code, but would be nightmarish to develop on that scale. Kolibri OS might be tightly coded, but is it as tightly-coded as 1K ZX Chess? I doubt it, because it would be impossible to develop something on even *that* scale to that level of efficiency. Which pretty much proves my point that some "bloat" is inevitable as you scale up.
I bet you'd have no problem finding security flaws in Commodore 64's GEOS.
No doubt. I'm sure it would be even easier to find security flaws in a 1KB ZX81 program, but you're not going to be able to write anything that'll even begin to meet Facebook's server requirements in something of comparable size to either, so it's a pointless example.
Anyway, people hold up 8-bit code as a paragon of efficiency all the time. And it was... as far as it went. But 8-bit programs were generally very limited in what they could do, and it's impractical to use that design style for larger, more modern programs.
Plus, efficient use of machine resources and readability/maintainability are not mutual bedfellows. 8-bit code was often fast and memory-efficient because it used lots of tricks and minimal-OS/hitting-the-bare-metal type hacks. Try writing something modern and complex to the same level of tightness that made 1K ZX Chess possible and it might be a fraction of the size (of the actual present-day app) but it'd still be huge, unreadable and far *more* opaque than the standard version.
Which is the key I think - software needs to be less bloated, so it's easier to debug.
AFAIK, the "bloat" in Facebook's case is as much down to the fact it was poorly-designed in the first place and (I assume) that the functionality was based around adding to and mutating this original codebase.
And do you mean "bloat" in terms of size of source code, or bloat in terms of the final result?
Video Games, especially RPGs (including MMOs, despite the lack of an RP element), take most of their core systems from Tabletop Games...from the 80s.
Tabletop games are *not* the sole origin of "video games" in general. They were undoubtedly a major and undeniable influence on the industry- most significantly on the RPG and adventure-derived genres- but certainly not the only one, and have virtually no relevance to the more arcade-influenced games. For example, you might be able to trace a recent Need for Speed game's lineage to Night Driver, but I'm damned if I can see where Dungeons and Dragons might fit in there.
If we would just stop supporting them, that shit would go away, but each and every time people rush out to buy it without giving the slightest consideration to what this is going to do to our future.
Yeah, well the problem isn't merely that the great unwashed masses neither know nor care. It's that even on Slashdot, where people *are* aware of the issues and indeed complain about them endlessly, when push comes to shove, rather than stand up for what they believe in and forego the latest instalment of their favourite [whatever] or the latest tech goody made by Evil Corporation, the majority will cave in (*) and hand over their cash anyway.
(*) Though "cave in" suggests that there was ever any intention to boycott them in the first place, and a lot of people don't even commit themselves that far. Then again, it could be argued that at least they're being honest and upfront about their wishy-washiness.
There actually is. People will play your game and see your company logo for decades. They will come back to the game again and again. Never underestimate the power of nostalgia.
This assumes that companies are looking 20+ years ahead, which is rarely the case. Heck, the people who run most publicly-traded American companies don't even look 5 years ahead.
And remember that people get nostalgic about Atari, but that whether such nostalgia benefits the present-day "Atari" is irrelevant since their only connection with the original "true" Atari Inc. (which has long since ceased to exist in any meaningful way) is that they (i.e. Infogrames) bought the rights to the name a decade or so back.
The NES's cartridge loading mechanism was far more susceptible to this than the other consoles... which is funny because the design they used was specifically intended to make it look more like a VCR [my emphasis] than an Atari 2600.
That's not odd at all, quite the opposite. Given that- as you yourself say- the primary motivation for their design choice was cosmetic, it's hardly surprising that their gimmicky VCR-style mechanism was less reliable than the tried-and-tested traditional slot they intentionally rejected for appearance's sake.
(Yes, AFAIK there were legitimate commercial reasons that they wanted to distance themselves from the 2600. However, this doesn't change the fact that they made their design choice for cosmetic reasons, not those of reliability).
That second bit (about the accommodation) was an assumption on my part as I understood it was quite common in China. Perhaps it shouldn't have been included as I didn't know that for sure.
Or else their family will get bugger-all compensation because the employee signed an agreement not to commit suicide, whereas they might have stood a chance of getting more otherwise.
This *might* or might not work in the Chinese legal system, but I wouldn't bet large amounts against it. And (as others have already said) even if all it does is put a few people off by making it *appear* harder to sue, it's probably worth the relatively small cost of inclusion.
An example of how, even- well, especially- on Slashdot, there exists the desire to be a smartass and jump on an easy opportunity to feel superior to someone else's "stupidity", even if that stupidity is just a bit too much to be taken at face value. When in fact the genuinely clever person would be asking and finding out why a massive company would include such an ostensibly stupid clause and what the underlying motivations might *really* be.
"Sign this Pledge not to commit suicide."
"No."
"I said, sign it! Or Else!"
"Or else what? You going to kill me for not signing a pledge that says I won't do it myself?"
To which the bleeding obvious response is...
"No, or else you'll get the sack and be turfed out of your company-provided accommodation".
Disclaimer; IANACLANAYIS (I am not a Chinese lawyer... and neither are you, I suspect!)
So I get to sign contracts that put conditions on my family in China? sweeet.
Well, you can't say for sure- this is your interpretation of the article's interpretation and (possibly casual) paraphrasing of the original contract. It's equally- if not more- likely that it was actually expressed as something like (e.g.) a bomb-disposal expert's contract including a condition acknowledging the high risk of the job and limiting damages able to be obtained *on their behalf* as a result of their death.
It's only putting conditions on the family in their (voluntary) capacity as agents acting on the behalf of the deceased.
Course, even if this *is* the case, one may argue that while such a clause would be legitimate and understandable for the bomb disposal expert, the "no suicide" clause- even if expressed in that way- is more obviously abusive and less justified.
BTW, heard this story- or something similar- before, when the last lot of Apple-leak-suicides were happening, and the same reason was given for the (superficially) silly inclusion of the "no suicide" clause. Not as daft as it sounds.
15 April 1997: MMMBop released by girl band Hansen.
"Hanson is an American pop band formed in Tulsa, Oklahoma by brothers [..]" They just looked and sounded like girls.
That's odd, I didn't think one would be able to hear the "whooshing" sound of Hale Bopp by this stage... can't think what else might have caused it. (^_^)
This is epic...in an extremely awkward and creepy way. It's nice to know that I could always have Courtney Love make out with me without catching the herp.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple basically launched the "era of touch"... maybe with a little help from Nintendo. Yet "personal satisfaction" is the only compansation they get for getting us there.
Yeah, it's a real shame that they didn't benefit in terms of gaining a very significant market share or by making tons of money by selling countless iPhones. Poor Apple!
Seriously, what on *earth* are you on that you think Apple hasn't received significant reward for the iPhone's success?! Sheesh.
Probably not... I remember when TV's had VCR's built in.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I'll assume that you're saying that TV/VCR combos were never *that* common, or at least not as common as one might have guessed they'd have become beforehand.
But that's because there were a number of issues- they typically cost around the same as a separate TV and video, back when video recorders were still moderately expensive, but had the disadvantage of tying the two together (e.g. if the video broke and had to be fixed you lost your TV too) and were frequently inferior (e.g. just one tuner so you couldn't record one channel and watch another).
Streaming players are already much cheaper and likely to get cheaper still, since solid-state microchip-based technology is much better at doing that than mechanical video recorders... but that also makes it a no-brainer to slap it into a TV as an extra feature once the chipset gets dirt-cheap (or the functionality is easily able to be included as part of the standard chipset anyway).
...if your target metric is trendoid self-absorbed hipsters.
No kidding... shortly after I first heard about FourSquare and realised that it *hadn't* actually been made up by The Onion, the first thing I thought was "that's... *very* Nathan Barley".
Pecantically, it's more like a slightly smarter version of Nathan Barley from the early-2000s grew up a bit (without becoming any more likeable) and decided to make some money by exploiting today's early-twentysomething, wannabe narcissistic tossers, i.e. the Nathan Barley: The Next Generations.
Barf.
If it is him I can say it all I like, I'm in Scotland and the order doesn't apply here.
I suspect they didn't bother getting an order in Scotland, because they know that the only football (and footballers) the Scottish media are interested in are Celtic and Rangers. And Rangers and Celtic. And Celtic and Celtic and Rangers and Rangers.
Which is fair enough- everyone knows there's nothing more to Scottish football than the west coast's favourite sectarian proxies and their endless inflicting of a Glasgow-centric view on the rest of the country.
FWIW, that's why I think that this story must have been broken by a naive English journalist working for the Herald who didn't understand the above *very important* rules. Damn foreigners coming in and upsetting our navel-gazing insular bigoted footballing concerns....
Although I live in the UK, I wasn't that interested in the alleged identity of the person, so I wasn't actively going digging or setting out to find out who it was anyway.
Still, while signing on to the UK Yahoo website to check one of my mail accounts, at the top of their "TRENDING NOW" list shown on the portal page was the name of a well-known British footballer which was a borderline dead-giveaway for me (unless some other story I didn't know about had gained massive prominence overnight).
Do I really care about that he's had an affair in itself? No, I couldn't give a toss. If this had just been something that had appeared on the front page of The Sun, I probably wouldn't have noticed and even if I had I wouldn't have cared. (I don't read The Sun partly because (a) who gives a **** who some celebrity slept with and (b) Rupert Murdoch can go DIAF).
I'd say it was more interesting that- despite having been around for donkeys years and now at the age where most top-flight players are winding down their careers at more obscure clubs, if not actively retired- he's still appparently playing top flight football for the same team he's been in for the past 20 years. Which is due some kind of respect anyway...
I barely looked at the summary, let alone hovered over the URL to see what address it was.
uhmm well: http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html [cracked.com]
Eh.... I know it's obviously tongue-in-cheek, but that article doesn't really work on its own terms.
Problem is that they give scientifically-plausible reasons about how their bodies can't heal themselves due to damage, their lack of circulation means the cold would damage them, ditto heat (which would cause putrefaction or mummification), maggots would eat them etc.
Yet it relies on accepting the basic premise of the stereotypical zombie- that something that was already in a "dead" and decomposing state would still (somehow) be capable of supporting life, let alone actually moving about in an animated manner. Problem is that if you accept Cracked's analysis- even as an intellectual joke- you can't really then dismiss very similar reasons why zombies shouldn't exist in the first place!
How many people got educated about what to do in a disaster because they thought, "Oh, zombies, lulz!"
That's ironic, because I honestly *didn't* read the article for the same reason- I thought it was just yet another entry on the pretend-serious joke "zombie apocalypse" bandwagon, which is starting to become overdone to the point of cliche.
Too many people end up with TV screens so large that the individual pixels become annoyingly visible. HD mitigates this, but most channels still use SD. Pick a TV screen size that's appropriate for your viewing distance, instead of the bigger == better fallacy.
Don't listen to this idiot, he's got it the wrong way around. Pick as big a screen as you damn well want *then* pick a viewing distance that's appropriate for your TV screen size.
Personally, I chose the biggest screen I could get my hands on (having sold my house to pay for it) and yeah, it looks like ass from a few metres away, but I solved the problem by installing it in the field half a mile down the road from my house and watching through the living room window.
All my friends were impressed until the people who now own the house threw me out, but er.... the principle still stands.
I can't possibly the only one who decided instantly not to buy from Sony any more. Okay, I admit, Sony-exclusive stuff will still probably draw me in, if it's good.
Yeah, got to love the way that your typical Slashdotter always proclaims their principles loudly and states their commitment to a boycott... until push comes to shove, reality dawns and anything *remotely* approaching self-sacrifice would be required (i.e. foregoing EvilCorp's latest instalment of Fanboy Franchise). In which case there's plenty of backtracking and a convenient get-out clause that shows just how wishy-washy they were in the first place.
Oooh... you might be more likely to buy some discounted second-tier game on XBox (lemme guess, unless the PS3 version has much prettier graphics)? I bet the Sony execs are *quaking* in their boots at the thought! Especially as you'll probably have forgotten about your vague boycott two weeks from now.
Kolibri OS is not 8 bit mister "I don't read before replying" or use his brain.
What makes your childish reponse more laughable and ironic is that if *you'd* been paying attention, you'd notice that the section quoted did not include mention of the Kolibri OS, because I wasn't replying to that, but specifically the part about the 8-bit Commodore 64. Is that clear enough for you "mister"?!
That said, I *did* investigate Kolibri OS after you mentioned it. Regardless of how tightly it is coded, or how suitable it would be for running Facebook's server code, it does *not* follow that because the OS itself is efficiently-written, that all apps will automatically be so too.
And the "8-bit" coding style critique I made referred to the philosophy, which *could* be applied to 32 and 64-bit code, but would be nightmarish to develop on that scale. Kolibri OS might be tightly coded, but is it as tightly-coded as 1K ZX Chess? I doubt it, because it would be impossible to develop something on even *that* scale to that level of efficiency. Which pretty much proves my point that some "bloat" is inevitable as you scale up.
I bet you'd have no problem finding security flaws in Commodore 64's GEOS.
No doubt. I'm sure it would be even easier to find security flaws in a 1KB ZX81 program, but you're not going to be able to write anything that'll even begin to meet Facebook's server requirements in something of comparable size to either, so it's a pointless example.
Anyway, people hold up 8-bit code as a paragon of efficiency all the time. And it was... as far as it went. But 8-bit programs were generally very limited in what they could do, and it's impractical to use that design style for larger, more modern programs.
Plus, efficient use of machine resources and readability/maintainability are not mutual bedfellows. 8-bit code was often fast and memory-efficient because it used lots of tricks and minimal-OS/hitting-the-bare-metal type hacks. Try writing something modern and complex to the same level of tightness that made 1K ZX Chess possible and it might be a fraction of the size (of the actual present-day app) but it'd still be huge, unreadable and far *more* opaque than the standard version.
Which is the key I think - software needs to be less bloated, so it's easier to debug.
AFAIK, the "bloat" in Facebook's case is as much down to the fact it was poorly-designed in the first place and (I assume) that the functionality was based around adding to and mutating this original codebase.
And do you mean "bloat" in terms of size of source code, or bloat in terms of the final result?
We only had our cocks. And it was all single player.
Well, to be fair, I feel obliged to point out that cocks *are* actually designed for multiplayer use...
Video Games, especially RPGs (including MMOs, despite the lack of an RP element), take most of their core systems from Tabletop Games...from the 80s.
Tabletop games are *not* the sole origin of "video games" in general. They were undoubtedly a major and undeniable influence on the industry- most significantly on the RPG and adventure-derived genres- but certainly not the only one, and have virtually no relevance to the more arcade-influenced games. For example, you might be able to trace a recent Need for Speed game's lineage to Night Driver, but I'm damned if I can see where Dungeons and Dragons might fit in there.
If we would just stop supporting them, that shit would go away, but each and every time people rush out to buy it without giving the slightest consideration to what this is going to do to our future.
Yeah, well the problem isn't merely that the great unwashed masses neither know nor care. It's that even on Slashdot, where people *are* aware of the issues and indeed complain about them endlessly, when push comes to shove, rather than stand up for what they believe in and forego the latest instalment of their favourite [whatever] or the latest tech goody made by Evil Corporation, the majority will cave in (*) and hand over their cash anyway.
(*) Though "cave in" suggests that there was ever any intention to boycott them in the first place, and a lot of people don't even commit themselves that far. Then again, it could be argued that at least they're being honest and upfront about their wishy-washiness.
There actually is. People will play your game and see your company logo for decades. They will come back to the game again and again. Never underestimate the power of nostalgia.
This assumes that companies are looking 20+ years ahead, which is rarely the case. Heck, the people who run most publicly-traded American companies don't even look 5 years ahead.
And remember that people get nostalgic about Atari, but that whether such nostalgia benefits the present-day "Atari" is irrelevant since their only connection with the original "true" Atari Inc. (which has long since ceased to exist in any meaningful way) is that they (i.e. Infogrames) bought the rights to the name a decade or so back.
I blew that thing so much trying to get it to work (often failing), I feel like a cheap whore now just thinking about it.
I wouldn't worry about it- it's not like you accepted money for it, so technically you're a slut, not a whore. :-)
The NES's cartridge loading mechanism was far more susceptible to this than the other consoles... which is funny because the design they used was specifically intended to make it look more like a VCR [my emphasis] than an Atari 2600.
That's not odd at all, quite the opposite. Given that- as you yourself say- the primary motivation for their design choice was cosmetic, it's hardly surprising that their gimmicky VCR-style mechanism was less reliable than the tried-and-tested traditional slot they intentionally rejected for appearance's sake.
(Yes, AFAIK there were legitimate commercial reasons that they wanted to distance themselves from the 2600. However, this doesn't change the fact that they made their design choice for cosmetic reasons, not those of reliability).
That second bit (about the accommodation) was an assumption on my part as I understood it was quite common in China. Perhaps it shouldn't have been included as I didn't know that for sure.
Yeah, they better not kill themselves OR ELSE!
Or else their family will get bugger-all compensation because the employee signed an agreement not to commit suicide, whereas they might have stood a chance of getting more otherwise.
This *might* or might not work in the Chinese legal system, but I wouldn't bet large amounts against it. And (as others have already said) even if all it does is put a few people off by making it *appear* harder to sue, it's probably worth the relatively small cost of inclusion.
An example of how, even- well, especially- on Slashdot, there exists the desire to be a smartass and jump on an easy opportunity to feel superior to someone else's "stupidity", even if that stupidity is just a bit too much to be taken at face value. When in fact the genuinely clever person would be asking and finding out why a massive company would include such an ostensibly stupid clause and what the underlying motivations might *really* be.
"Sign this Pledge not to commit suicide."
"No."
"I said, sign it! Or Else!"
"Or else what? You going to kill me for not signing a pledge that says I won't do it myself?"
To which the bleeding obvious response is...
"No, or else you'll get the sack and be turfed out of your company-provided accommodation".
So I get to sign contracts that put conditions on my family in China? sweeet.
Well, you can't say for sure- this is your interpretation of the article's interpretation and (possibly casual) paraphrasing of the original contract. It's equally- if not more- likely that it was actually expressed as something like (e.g.) a bomb-disposal expert's contract including a condition acknowledging the high risk of the job and limiting damages able to be obtained *on their behalf* as a result of their death.
It's only putting conditions on the family in their (voluntary) capacity as agents acting on the behalf of the deceased.
Course, even if this *is* the case, one may argue that while such a clause would be legitimate and understandable for the bomb disposal expert, the "no suicide" clause- even if expressed in that way- is more obviously abusive and less justified.
BTW, heard this story- or something similar- before, when the last lot of Apple-leak-suicides were happening, and the same reason was given for the (superficially) silly inclusion of the "no suicide" clause. Not as daft as it sounds.
15 April 1997: MMMBop released by girl band Hansen.
"Hanson is an American pop band formed in Tulsa, Oklahoma by brothers [..]" They just looked and sounded like girls.
That's odd, I didn't think one would be able to hear the "whooshing" sound of Hale Bopp by this stage... can't think what else might have caused it. (^_^)
This is epic...in an extremely awkward and creepy way. It's nice to know that I could always have Courtney Love make out with me without catching the herp.
No, I'm sorry, we already have this video of Courtney Love infecting someone via a radio link.
...after I invent a device that allows you to punch people in the face over the Internet.
I will set up a Foundation JUST to research this possibility. Just let me know if you want the checks made out to CASH.
Nah, I think that Hatful of Hollow is really the one that deserves it. :-)