Posts tagged with "rant"
Thursday, 19. November 2009, 20:11:13
tankers, oil, capitalism, rant
...
There's a lot of oil tankers out there, so one in twelve is actually... well, a twelth of a lot of oil tankers, which I bet is still quite a lot.
And why, you cry, am I concerning myself with a twelth of the world's oil tankers? Because, I reply, one twelth of the world's oil tankers are currently hanging around doing nothing, no, make that hanging around fully laden and doing nothing. Why, you may well ask, are they doing that, have they been taken by Somali pirates or something?
Well, a couple of them maybe, but no, they're waiting for the price of oil to go up.
There are about 50 of them parked around Britain right now, they started stacking up about 8 months ago, which is quite a long time, but if the price goes up enough the cost of hiring the ship to sit and wait is dwarfed by the extra value of the oil. In effect we're being held to ransom.
In the 50s and 60s science-fiction authors were mocked for writing dystopian-future stories in which big-business was bigger than individual nations. No country in the world, went the argument, would ever allow a business to get that big.
Well I guess they did.
Of course I do have a couple of solutions. That's what I'm here for. Firstly we could charge them for parking. The rest of us have to pay for it, why shouldn't they? They're in our territorial waters, they'll expect our assistance if they get into trouble, they're listening to our weather forecasts, watching our TV, and it's our beaches that'll suffer if they spring a leak.
Failing that there's always option two.
Send for those Somalian pirates. Let them do a bit of good for a change.
Saturday, 14. November 2009, 20:15:08
murdoch, Brown, the sun, rant
...
It's a Jimmy Webb song if you were wondering, but as usual it's not the subject of the diatribe that you just know is coming.
Over the last week or so it has transpired that George Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and consequently quite a busy chap, has been going up to his writing room (Or whatever it is in that rather big house we're letting him live in) and sending personal handwritten letters of condolence to the relatives of soldiers killed in action.
He's been doing this since he took over the job and for a while no one bar the recipients even knew he was doing it, but even after people started to notice it was never actually publicised. For people like me the first we knew about it was when The Sun declared it was disgusting.
The reason it was disgusting was that he mis-spelt someone's name and she took such offence at it that she contacted the world's most anti-Gordon Brown newspaper to complain about it. They of course reproduced the whole letter with the "terrible handwriting" and "disgusting spelling mistakes" ringed 'round the way your school teacher used to do.
Brown was, naturally, mortified by this, and telephoned the lady in question to appologise and explain, and this is the point where I become a minority of one, because the woman taped the conversation and passed that on to The Sun as well. Everyone else excuses this because she's lost her son and she must just be thrashing about trying to make some sense of it. Me, I start from the position that she even thought to record the conversation. Why has she got the equipment to do this in the first place? Is she aware that it's illegal to record a conversation without telling the other party (Strange, but true)?
To me the only conclusion that I can come to is that she's deliberately using the death of her son to create an anti-government furure and I don't know about you but I find that kind of disgusting. All my sympathy has dried up like the Sahara on a particularly hot summer's day, all I can see is some hypocrite weighing up the death of her son against the chance to help another party into office. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
In Britain, when you're approaching your 100th birthday, a friend or relative can write to tell the queen and you'll get a congratulatory telegram from her maj herself. The queen doesn't receive the request, it's intercepted long before that and sent to the 100th birthday dept. where a civil servant sends the telegram on the appropriate day. Queenly involvement in all this? None. Everyone knows it, but no one minds.
George Brown was using his own time to personally handwrite message of condolence, and this woman and The Sun criticise him for it? Believe me I'm no fan of Brown, but this makes my blood boil.
Incidentally, The Sun also mis-spelt the lady's name on its website.
She didn't complain to anyone about that though.
Monday, 5. October 2009, 21:36:30
large, politics, george brown, government
...
I heard quite a bit about little government during the US election, and now during the UK's annual party shindigs I'm hearing a lot more. Everyone, we're led to believe, wants small government.
No they don't.
Certainly everyone thinks they want small government. They don't want these people interfering in their lives, and small government will obviously cost less so our taxes can come down (Yeah, right). In reality 'The government should do/have done something' is one of the most frequent phrases seen on news and documentary programmes. It seems that we all want small government until it affects us, then we think it should be slightly bigger so it could have "Done something."
I have, just lately, noticed a variation in this. None labourites are now inclined to say "George Brown should have done something". This is because polls show that Brown is less popular than his party, so they are aiming all their allegations of mismanagement at the man himself. Come the revolution all spin-doctors will be put up against the wall if I have any say in it...
Meanwhile, I kid you not, there has been a tragic, and surely preventable, loss of life in Scotland where two young girls have committed suicide by jumping off a bridge into the river below. Someone from vox-pop has just said on the radio "Someone should have done something. What are the government doing?"
I rest my case.
Sunday, 4. October 2009, 22:46:40
Linux, xp, mandriva, windows
...
Any other Linux users out there having problems with Opera 10? Since upgrading I've not been able to fire up Opera, even by going to the file and clicking on the actual program. I know the XP version works, and I quite like it, trouble is the only thing I like about XP itself is that it's not Vista.
Why couldn't they have just kept on upgrading Windows 98? That's what I want to know.
It's a little strange to see how well programs that started life as Linux counterparts of expensive Windows programs are now running on Windows. I wish ports the other way worked so well. I guess the problem is the number of different versions of Linux there are. Windows programmers only have to work on maybe 3 or 4 variations, Linux has splintered into 3 figures, most of which will never really get the support they need. In fact Opera is one of the best at various distribution support.
Well, except when
it doesn't work!!!
Wednesday, 30. September 2009, 00:18:05
news, rant, sun, election
...
So Gordon Brown has just made his make or break speech and early opinions are, well... Not very invigorating to be honest.
They basically ran the gamut from "That's what he always says" to "That's what they all say." I'm guessing you can guess the political slant of the responders by which reply they go for.
The reason for this dearth of constructive critique is that the newspapers haven't come out yet. Tomorrow nearly everyone will have an opinion, and for a frighteningly high percentage of them it will be based upon what their choice of 'paper has to say. And Britain's favourite daily is The Sun.
In other words Rupert Murdoch will be dictating how people will eventually vote in the next election.
That's not my opinion, by the way, it's the opinion of The Sun itself, and of the politicians who woo the Murdoch clan at every available opportunity. Which I find a little frightening. The thing is, all newspapers are registered as such, it gives them certain privileges. To me, any 'paper which publishes opinions as news should lose that registration, opinions should be kept to the opinion columns.
Meanwhile I can but exhort the Sun's 10 million readers to think for themselves whilst they're admiring page three with one hand. Don't let Rupert Murdoch tell you what to think.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
If anyone noticed my several week's absence and wondered why, I just thought I'd mention. I downloaded Opera 10 for Mandriva Linux, and it doesn't work. It doesn't even load. Hence I am writing this on a pretty pink laptop running XP, and I don't like it.
XP that is, not the pretty pink computer, which I shall continue to worship for at least as long as it takes for this to get published...
Tuesday, 25. August 2009, 15:47:35
Caster, Semenya, athletics, bolt
...
Caster Semenya, the South African 800m champion, has been told to take a gender test by the International Association of Athletics Federations. It seems she ran so well that she must be a man.
It's only a few years ago that British marathon runner Paula Radcliffe completely demolished the World Marathon record, coming in with a time that most of her male compatriots would have been proud to achieve. Strangely there were no demands for her to take a sex test.
This was because she was so obviously a girly. She was little and cute and she had a fluffy whispy voice like girls are supposed to have and this kuyoooot little laugh. So instead all her rivals studied her style, her diet, her exercise regime, and started work on something similar for themselves. Surprise! Within two years other girls were running just as fast as Radcliffe. They could have done it all along, they just needed someone to show them the way.
Then there's Usain St. Leo Bolt who is likewise smashing speed records and causing much exitement all around him. To the best of my knowledge the IAAF haven't insisted he be tested for an unusual aversion to kryptonite.
So why are they picking on Caster Semenya? It's because they're afraid she may be a bit different. She may be a girl with the XY chromosome, or have some other kind of aberation that means that she's really a girl in a man's body. Or vice versa, they're not worried as long as they get her for something.
So she's in danger of being disallowed from competing because of some aberation that she has no knowledge of or control over. We've already had a case of a disabled athlete being barred because they were afraid his artificial legs gave him an advantage, now we're in the field of disbarring super-abled athletes. Soon you'll have to pass a normalness test before you're allowed to compete at anything.
Hitler would have been really proud.
Saturday, 1. August 2009, 18:07:18
imperial, definitions, USA, UK
...
It's amazing how one bit of bad information can stay with you all your life. One day our English teacher set us an essay on the subject 'The sense of nonsense', and he said he would give zero points to anyone who misspelled it. To emphasise his point he wrote 'SENCE' on the board. Ooh, and I so nearly got it wrong. I copied it down and used that spelling throughout my essay.
He thought I was trying to be funny.
I, on the other hand, had to check the spelling before I could write this piece thanks to his little attempt at humour.
The first time I saw the word 'halcyon' I read it - dyslexia being what it is - as 'halycon', and the first time I used it I mispronounced it, much to the amusement of the surrounding throng. So I made a mental note that what I thought it was was wrong, and now I get it right about 50% of the time.
If only I could remember which was right and which was wrong in the first place...
With thanks to either a typo or someone's rank ignorace I once read that a mile was 1,700 yards. Since the author of that little gem was a citizen of the USA I assumed that this was just one more of those little things that the USA did differently to everyone else. For several years of my life I went around telling people that a US mile wasn't as long as an imperial mile. I didn't actually go around just telling people of course, but if it came up in conversation I was ready with the trivia, so there are probably several hundred people who now think that US and UK miles are different things, and that if you're a USAian you can drive slightly faster over here...
Now I've finally got it right someone's going to write and comment that a US mile
is 1,700 yards. Go on, feel free to screw me up some more.
When I was a kid I knew that bi- meant two and tri- meant three because of bicycles, biplanes, tricycles, and triplanes. It was therefore obvious to me that a billion was two million and a trillion was three million. I explained this to a whole lot of my friends and acquaintances. Finally my dad put me right. A billion was a million to the power of two, and a trillion was a million to the power of three. I thought it was silly - why would anyone need numbers that big? - but it did make a kind of logical sense.
Enter the USA again. For reasons best known to some obviously subnormal maths teacher they decided that a billion was a thousand million, therefore a trillion was a million to the power of two. Now I'm sorry but I can find no logic in that whatsoever. Try as I may I can make no sen
cese of that, it's positively the most stupid thing I've ever heard of in my life (Well close anyway), and when the government of Britain decided to go along with the US definition I was right there at the forefront of the don't be silly campaign (We're just so polite over here...).
Thanks to the credit crunch I now feel more than justified in that particular opinion. There are people on the TV news talking about trillions like it's small change. Now what are we going to call a
really large sum of money? I think this time the USA should adopt our logical definition before they have to start inventing new words.
Which I will, of course, only have trouble with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now here's an interesting little thing that I discovered whilst typing this little missive. If your right hand slips one key to the left whilst you're typing, 'mile' comes out as 'nuke'.
You learn something new every day.
Wednesday, 11. February 2009, 01:19:31
TV, Australia, broadcasting, arson
...
So Australia's on fire and the UK's under water. The fires have destroyed 700 homes and the UK government has authorized the destruction of 700 homes to build an airport extension. The fires have caused almost 200 deaths... OK, we had to get involved in two wars to match that.
Has anyone (UK based) noticed how all the news has to be related to us? I've just been watching a harrowing feature on the Victoria State fires and the probability that half of them were started deliberately, and at the end of it the newsreader came on to reassure us that to date, as far as they knew, no Britons were amongst the casualties.
I realise that some people may be concerned about friends or family over there, but the news isn't the place to reassure them, it sounds for all the world as though as long as we're all right Jack, nothing else really matters.
On the other hand I've just watched a CBS half hour news summary that didn't even mention the fires in Australia. Surely they're not galled because Australia's got bigger fires than they had? Then you get Sky and Fox News broadcasting all the news that won't anger Rupert Murdoch and Five News broadcasting news for women at 5pm and news for men at 7pm...
Thank goodness for the World Service on steam radio.
Thursday, 20. November 2008, 01:26:32
strictly, sergeant, dancing, rant
I feel cheated, let down, conned, and that was
before John Sergeant quit 'Strictly come dancing', so you can imagine how I'm feeling right now.
After all his great pronouncements about viewer's votes counting Sergeant goes and quits. The BBC must be hopping mad, the great man ('Great' as in 'large and rotund') was a true crowd pleaser and was also pulling in vast sums for the Children in Need charity, and they may now have to refund the money to those who voted for for him. Mind you, if I'd voted I'd have told them to keep the money, it's not the kid's fault that Sergeant wimped out.
The thing is, should the other no hopers also fall on their swords then? I can think of a couple of other clodhoppers who don't stand a bonfire in my refrigerator's chance of winning, or at least they didn't before the Sarge did a bunk. What's the point of the programme if competitors who've realised that they shouldn't win just walk off? Why bother with voting? Where's the playground Susie? What's it all about, Alphie? What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? How many roads must a man walk down before he admits he is lost?
At least I can answer that last one.
42.
I've had enough of this, I'm going to bed and in the morning it will all have been a bad dream.
Night-night.
Monday, 3. November 2008, 01:38:57
meals, ecchh, instant, cold
...
...they're never actually ready.
The general idea is that you stick them into a pre-heated oven at a certain temperature, leave them for the stated time period, get them out and eat them. There's usually a microwave option which requires you to stick them in the microwave for a few minutes then leave them until they've cooled down enough to touch then take them out and eat them.
The reality is that you take option 1 or 2, follow the instructions to the letter, take them out and under that delicious exterior they're lukewarm inside. You stick them back in for another time period (I usually aim for about 10% of the original time) and they're still lukewarm (So much for my 10%...) so you turn up the heat (Oven) / check that it's switched on (Microwave) and lob it in for another 10 minutes.
When it comes out of the oven it splashes and burns your fingers, the whole of the outside is burnt, the plastic tray has melted into strange (And possibly saleable at certain art auction houses) shapes, and the interior is now edible. When it comes out of the microwave the result is identical except that now parts of the interior are baked solid and inedible. You may feel that this suggests that ordinary ovens are best, but it is worth bearing in mind that with the microwave you don't waste nearly as much time in ruining your meal.
I've now taken to completing step one with the oven, then having ascertained that the food is indeed undercooked, I shove it into the microwave for 5 - 10 minutes. This fools the food and, I think, makes it angry, angry enough to get very hot under the collar, so it's at this point that I whip it out.
You'll notice that I make no mention of leaving the food until it's cooled down. This is the mistake that I consistently make. The food is now so hot that it splashes and burns me, the dish is so distorted that I can't move without splashing some more and by the time I get it down on a clear surface my fingers have burned rock hard (No guitar playing for me tonight!) and I have to run them under a cold tap. Eventually the food is transferred to my plate, although it never looks quite as good as it did on the packet, and I tuck in. It burns my lips as it goes in, it burns my throat on the way down, and when it reaches my stomach it lies there and burns some more.
Half an hour later my internal workings have had enough of this mistreatment and they direct me in no uncertain terms to Mr. Crapper's place where the food procedes to burn me all over again in a new and really different way.
And to think, some people add curry powder.
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Showing posts 1 -
10 of 44.