Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A Joke That'll Move Your World
I was playing my mate at pool the other day. I accidentally potted the white, so he had two shots. He potted on the first, and missed on the second. He turned to me to ask if it was still his turn at the table.
'Do you play carry?' he asked.
To which I replied: 'I did once try playing 'Carrie', but she kept moving the balls.'
This would have been an amazing joke if he'd ever fucking heard of it. Sometimes, my wit is my own worst enemy.
Cheat.
'Do you play carry?' he asked.
To which I replied: 'I did once try playing 'Carrie', but she kept moving the balls.'
This would have been an amazing joke if he'd ever fucking heard of it. Sometimes, my wit is my own worst enemy.
Cheat.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Aunty Knows Best?
Paul Dacre, the editor of The Daily Mail, has claimed that the BBC is 'culturally Marxist'. No-one seems to be quite sure what he means - least of all, I'm tempted to suggest, himself - however, reading between the lines, he seems to be levelling a charge of collective left-liberal groupthink at the organisation. There is a fairly clear argument that this, at least, is not a wholly unfair charge. One need only look here for those disgruntled at the Beeb for this bias, and that blog features fairly prominently an article by Andrew Marr in which he admits that this is his impression too.
None of which should matter. I don't personally care what the opinions of BBC newsreaders are, and I reckon most people are intelligent enough to work out for themselves whatever their opinion on a story is, without having to be spoon-fed it. The trouble is, we are forced to care by the way the BBC is funded, through a mandatory, non-means-tested licence fee.
The licence fee system of funding has just been renewed for another ten years, but it gets increasingly hard to justify this. Matt C reveals, while making another point, that '[only] 2.6% of the national audience . . . are in the icy grip of BBCs 3, 4, News 24, Parliament and CBeebies.' All BBC channels put together only make up just over a quarter of television viewing. What's more, The Economist showed that:
'Poorer, less educated viewers seem to be turning away, too. Serious material suffers most when people move to multi-channel television, says Ofcom, and particularly in poorer households. The BBC's “Correspondent”, “Newsnight” and “Horizon”, all current-events programmes, are watched by only half as many multichannel homes as by terrestrial-only homes. ITV's “Pop Idol” is watched by only 16% fewer. The drop in “Newsnight” viewing was 17 percentage points greater among poorer viewers than among richer ones. Soap operas, light entertainment, daytime TV, sport and lottery programmes attract a much higher proportion of poorer viewers, the corporation notes.'
'The result, says a BBC executive, is that “we are over-serving white middle-class 55-year-olds.” The BBC is trying to do something to widen its audience. In 2002, for example, realising that it was hardly reaching young black people, it launched a digital radio station called 1Xtra, modelled on pirate radio.'
Even if it weren't the case that the licence fee was deeply unfair on sheer economic terms, it certainly is unfair in a multichannel world. Unable to attract younger and poorer viewers - despite what I suspect many would argue is trying too hard - the corporation is failing in its public service remit. The licence fee is a tax levied by those who can most afford it and get most out of it on those who can least afford it and get least out of it. It should be ditched as soon as possible - those ten years can't go quickly enough.
None of which should matter. I don't personally care what the opinions of BBC newsreaders are, and I reckon most people are intelligent enough to work out for themselves whatever their opinion on a story is, without having to be spoon-fed it. The trouble is, we are forced to care by the way the BBC is funded, through a mandatory, non-means-tested licence fee.
The licence fee system of funding has just been renewed for another ten years, but it gets increasingly hard to justify this. Matt C reveals, while making another point, that '[only] 2.6% of the national audience . . . are in the icy grip of BBCs 3, 4, News 24, Parliament and CBeebies.' All BBC channels put together only make up just over a quarter of television viewing. What's more, The Economist showed that:
'Poorer, less educated viewers seem to be turning away, too. Serious material suffers most when people move to multi-channel television, says Ofcom, and particularly in poorer households. The BBC's “Correspondent”, “Newsnight” and “Horizon”, all current-events programmes, are watched by only half as many multichannel homes as by terrestrial-only homes. ITV's “Pop Idol” is watched by only 16% fewer. The drop in “Newsnight” viewing was 17 percentage points greater among poorer viewers than among richer ones. Soap operas, light entertainment, daytime TV, sport and lottery programmes attract a much higher proportion of poorer viewers, the corporation notes.'
'The result, says a BBC executive, is that “we are over-serving white middle-class 55-year-olds.” The BBC is trying to do something to widen its audience. In 2002, for example, realising that it was hardly reaching young black people, it launched a digital radio station called 1Xtra, modelled on pirate radio.'
Even if it weren't the case that the licence fee was deeply unfair on sheer economic terms, it certainly is unfair in a multichannel world. Unable to attract younger and poorer viewers - despite what I suspect many would argue is trying too hard - the corporation is failing in its public service remit. The licence fee is a tax levied by those who can most afford it and get most out of it on those who can least afford it and get least out of it. It should be ditched as soon as possible - those ten years can't go quickly enough.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Chavmo
EDITOR'S NOTE: This post was, in fact, not written by me, but by my good friend Mike, who has no blog or Blogger ID. I would just like to take this opportunity to say that if anyone who has no blog wants to email me something they've written, I will happily publish it, and I won't steal the credit. Honest.
On my way home from University I concluded two thing. The first after overhearing someone one a bus say "I’m going to hit the books, then hit bed".
I think that all people that use hit before an object to say that they are going to do something involving the object should be hit in the face with that object. This should be enforced much in the same way as the tango adverts of old.
My second revelation was far more profound and wide reaching and could solve two major problems of modern society. Chavs or scallies, call them what you will are a pain in the arse. Always beating people up robbing houses, spitting (if you’re a chav reading this I don’t mean like a “grangsta rappper spittin lyrics”, I mean how everyone else uses the word) and breaking things. Bastards.
Emo kids are the second, less in your face but equally irritating, group who spend there time crying and whining about life being so hard. Boohoo.
A government enforced policy of breeding of the two together would lead to well rounded individuals who are neither annoyingly whiny or try to attack because you “looked at them wrong”. The whininess and agressiveness would balance each other out.
This equation proves it:
Chavy aggression + Emo whininess = Normal individual.
Problem solved…
Although on a small minority of cases there is a chance that this could lead to the worst of both worlds, a chavmo. This “person” would beat the shit out of you for no reason then cry about it while playing shitty, whiny music near your pummelled remains which would be infinitely worse then either one on its own.
On my way home from University I concluded two thing. The first after overhearing someone one a bus say "I’m going to hit the books, then hit bed".
I think that all people that use hit before an object to say that they are going to do something involving the object should be hit in the face with that object. This should be enforced much in the same way as the tango adverts of old.
My second revelation was far more profound and wide reaching and could solve two major problems of modern society. Chavs or scallies, call them what you will are a pain in the arse. Always beating people up robbing houses, spitting (if you’re a chav reading this I don’t mean like a “grangsta rappper spittin lyrics”, I mean how everyone else uses the word) and breaking things. Bastards.
Emo kids are the second, less in your face but equally irritating, group who spend there time crying and whining about life being so hard. Boohoo.
A government enforced policy of breeding of the two together would lead to well rounded individuals who are neither annoyingly whiny or try to attack because you “looked at them wrong”. The whininess and agressiveness would balance each other out.
This equation proves it:
Chavy aggression + Emo whininess = Normal individual.
Problem solved…
Although on a small minority of cases there is a chance that this could lead to the worst of both worlds, a chavmo. This “person” would beat the shit out of you for no reason then cry about it while playing shitty, whiny music near your pummelled remains which would be infinitely worse then either one on its own.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Cameron Chameleon
Compare and contrast:
'Politicians 'should meddle' in family life'
with
'I am Thatcher's heir!'
Sounds to me like the worst of both worlds. In fact, the corruption is maybe even more relevant - 'the worth of boast worlds'.
I've decided my advice for the next election already - 'vote Loony, vote often'.
By the way, chameleons generally don't change their colour to camouflage themselves - that's something of a myth. They actually change them when there is a change in their physical or psychological wellbeing. So there.
'Politicians 'should meddle' in family life'
with
'I am Thatcher's heir!'
Sounds to me like the worst of both worlds. In fact, the corruption is maybe even more relevant - 'the worth of boast worlds'.
I've decided my advice for the next election already - 'vote Loony, vote often'.
By the way, chameleons generally don't change their colour to camouflage themselves - that's something of a myth. They actually change them when there is a change in their physical or psychological wellbeing. So there.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Ha, World - In Your Face!
Well, it turns out I was right after all. After being wrong. However, let's focus on the fact that I was right in the end.
You may recall that a while ago Sony brought out an advert for their Bravia television featuring thousands upon thousands of coloured balls bouncing down the hilly streets of San Francisco.
I initially argued that practical reasons made this impossible, and that it must have been painstakingly CGI-ed. Boy, was I wrong, as these beautiful photos show.
Well, they proceeded to do a sequel with paint, which you are sure to have seen. Having been once burned, I proceeded to argue against everybody I knew that the advert was accomplished wholly without CGI. Nobody believed me - and they were all wrong:
'Our latest TV ad - featuring massive paint explosions - took 10 days and 250 people to film. Huge quantities of paint were needed to accomplish this, which had to be delivered in 1 tonne trucks and mixed on-site by 20 people.
The effect was stunning, but afterwards a major clean-up operation was required to clear away all that paint!
The cleaning took 5 days and 60 people. Thankfully, the use of a special water-based paint made it easy to scrape-up once the water had evaporated.'
Looks like I was right after all. More cracking photos here.
I apologise unreservedly for the infantile nature of this post. Can I have a free TV now Sony?
You may recall that a while ago Sony brought out an advert for their Bravia television featuring thousands upon thousands of coloured balls bouncing down the hilly streets of San Francisco.
I initially argued that practical reasons made this impossible, and that it must have been painstakingly CGI-ed. Boy, was I wrong, as these beautiful photos show.
Well, they proceeded to do a sequel with paint, which you are sure to have seen. Having been once burned, I proceeded to argue against everybody I knew that the advert was accomplished wholly without CGI. Nobody believed me - and they were all wrong:
'Our latest TV ad - featuring massive paint explosions - took 10 days and 250 people to film. Huge quantities of paint were needed to accomplish this, which had to be delivered in 1 tonne trucks and mixed on-site by 20 people.
The effect was stunning, but afterwards a major clean-up operation was required to clear away all that paint!
The cleaning took 5 days and 60 people. Thankfully, the use of a special water-based paint made it easy to scrape-up once the water had evaporated.'
Looks like I was right after all. More cracking photos here.
I apologise unreservedly for the infantile nature of this post. Can I have a free TV now Sony?
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Blogger The Weird
I hadn't used the draft function before - apparently it slots posts halfway down the page if you've written things in the more recent past, so I feel I should point out that I haven't totally abandoned you, I have been beavering away (as if!) on this. If you have comments, please comment under that post!
