World of Suck

It used to be that "computer games" required a "computer". You know in the classical sense, like one with a keyboard and maybe some sort of pointing device. Something you could pop the hood on and add maybe update your RAM or video card. Basically none of this console shit where you buy a pre-packaged box and play on it until they make you throw it out and buy a new one. Really it was something, because computers were the only things that could really do innovative things like wire-frame graphics and greater than 16 colors.

Eventually the PC became a solid platform for all sorts of new games and types of playing that required more than a 4-way rocker switch or joystick and a big red button. But now...? Game manufacturers have basically written off PC users as a market because it's *expensive* to design and write a real video game.

Ok, I admit, games like the FEAR and Half-Life series basically raised the bar to a level where it's hard to compete. But when games that do stand a chance of making a promising impression come out and then fucking blow it, it makes me want to take a stick to the management that set the priorities. Yeah, I'm talking about you Epic, and yeah I'm talking about Unreal Tournament 3. It's close, so fucking close we can all taste it - all your PC customers that brought your series to a fourth release know you kicked us in favor of the freekin' console release.

Items of Mass Stupidity:

• Remapping the console key from the standard ~ to F10. Why, gods oh why?
• A seriously gimped list of key bindings. Toss weapon? Hot-key phrases? You need to edit the damn ini.
• X and Y scale factors set to different values... because it's too hard for console gamers to push up and down compared to left and right. BUT WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A PC?
• No linux server release.
• No web admin for servers.
• User files stored in some gods-fosaken directory under "documents and settings"

I dunno, I'm too despondent to add more items, but seriously - none of these things would have taken more than a day of testing. All these things were standard in previous releases, and yeah, any real UT player is used to editing their ini for certain details... but come on - for stuff like toss weapon? What the fuck were they trying to prove?

I would really like to see the following question asked of all the pathetic . . . I mean presidential candidates: "What job(s) did you have that didn't require a suit?"

I do not currently work at a job that is physically demanding for crap pay, but I did. I worked at a supermarket, a fast food restaurant and an answering service, and as a flagger and bartender. I have a clue what it is like. I think we should expect no less of our leader and chief. Many people in this country work for crappy wages and crappy (if any) benefits. I think back to G.W. Senior and how he didn't know what a bar-code was. I want a president who has a clue what the little people do. Some of us come home grimy and physically broken at the end of the day. Some of use could use a really good foot massage. Some of us want to slap our petty boss who is a nasty bastard to their staff because they can be and he/she knows we need the job. Some of us endure the mind numbing frustration that is "rush-hour". Some of us just want to get warm/cool because we work outside and it is too hot/too cold. The list goes on.

Even now with a good job, I frequently come home with my eyes burning from reading reports and/or my back hurting from lugging my laptop and luggage with me on a business trip. I'm not saying president is easy, but he gets way more help then we do.

Presidential candidates can wear all the plaid and fleece they want, it still doesn't mean they know what the citizens in this country do everyday. So, presidential hopeful, ever had a little dirt (or worse) under those neatly manicured nails?

As if the phrase "War on Terror" wasn't ridiculous enough, Rudy Giuliani has come up with a variant that's even worse. He likes to talk about "The Terrorists' War on Us". That's quite possibly the worst phrase in the history of the English language.

I know this isn't a new thing, but he's started using the phrase more often lately, and it really bugs me. War on Us? That implies a one-way conflict, in which they're attacking us and we're sitting here and taking it. That's hardly the image that Giuliani wants to present, since he's the big tough guy who knows how to fight back against terrorists. Even if you accept that there's a unified group called "the terrorists" and that it's possible to be in a war against that group (despite a lack of victory conditions, or any way of knowing whether we're winning or losing that war), that phrase is idiotic.

Stuff like this leaves me conflicted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=504784&in_page_id=1770

On one hand - the couple gambled and it looks like they beat the odds. On the other, they have likely racked up large medical bills and put their son through numerous procedures. I know the whole "you can't put a price on human life" crap, but we put a "price" on human life everyday. This may have taken place in the UK, but similar circumstances occur in the US. I can not speak for other countries, but we have an insurance crisis in this country where working poor can't even get basic medical care for their children. Then these folks, and others like them, knowingly bring a child with many problems into the world and get him treatment through their medical insurance, being independently wealthy (which I doubt in most cases) or through whatever means.

I see a couple like this - I can sympathize with their pain for wanting a child and preserving a pregnancy. Then I look at how my insurance company denied (and I paid out of pocket) for a marginally experimental therapy device that cost all of $400. I just don't know what to think.

I've been having problems with my internet connection. Through trial and error I realized that it likely had something to do with my wireless adapter. I figured it has a 3 yr warranty and I've had it little more than one year, so lets talk to the "experts", the costumer support folks.

I explained my plight and their technician, Albert, asked some information about my computer, which I provided. I happen to have my computer on a table with a metal top with wooden legs. Here is Albert's reply: "One major issue that I see, is the computer sitting on a desk with a metal top. This will cause issues and I would recommend that you move your computer from that desk."

Here's the deal, I spent about $25 on this wireless card. How much would a new desk run, Albert?

Here is my reply: "I don't have another desk that could accommodate the computer, and I am certainly not going to buy a new desk to accommodate an accessory. Furthermore, the wireless adapter worked when I first got the card - the disconnection issues are fairly recent. My computer has always sat on this table. Laptop sits on the exact same desk and does not have any signal problems. Old external antenna had no problems (and that sat on the desk). If a metal table poses a problem, perhaps you should be up front with that flaw so that people can make an informed decision when purchasing your product."

Albert's reply: :"One option to try is to add an additional external antenna to the unit to boost the signal."

Hmm, I got a wireless adapter to get rid of the external antenna. Thanks so much.

This is probably more in the "irk" class of woes than in the "rant" class. It has to do with a lack of consistency in how states are ordered in a drop-down list. So why is this a problem for anyone? It's a problem for me because I do most of my shopping online because I detest box stores (well ok, the people *in* the box stores, not the stores themselves... I find an almost-empty store to be a pleasant store).

Since, as I said, I like to shop online I have to enter my mailing address. Unfortunately I live in one of the many states that begins with an "M".

Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri... the M-states have it all the heck over any other letter (since "A" and "W" are the next runners up with a paltry four). What bothers me is the ordering of the states when they are displayed in a list.

If you're selecting from the 2-letter acronym it makes sense for MA to come first, and ME to come later. If you're looking at the full spelling it should be correct for Maine to be at the top of the list. What makes absolutely no damn sense is to have ME, then MD and then MA. None.

I'm sure there's billions of lines of hand coding to ensure that states are not automatically ordered alphabetically. It would be a damn brilliant idea for everyone to agree on a single implementation depending on the number of letters displayed - or better just *always* sort things alphabetically!

A while back, I pointed out that Britney's Mom is writing a book on parenting. Link:

http://www.worldofsuck.net/index.php/Odessa/2007/11/03/move_over_dr_spock#comments

I just wonder what the news of her little 16 yr old darling becoming a Mommy herself will do to her book sales . . . especially considering that she will be due around the time the book is released. The little darning couldn't have planned it better! Just a little something to make me go "hmmm..."

While he is pointing fingers at Romney and his religion, the Baptist minister has a skeleton or two in his closet. His son was suspected of hanging a stray. The animal was sick, so I guess it was all right to kill it by hanging. Then Daddy helped make any animal cruelty charges go away - how convenient. Nice when your Daddy is Governor.

Link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241

http://gothamist.com/2007/12/21/stiffer_penalti.php

Once while I was eating dinner at TGIFs in Time Square this guy flashed a chick through the window between the lobby and the bar, then went outside and did it again. I almost went out and told him that if he wanted to impress her, he sure as hell wasn't going to do it that way. I guess now he might get a stiffer penalty.

and the city wants delis to "fire" them. They complain very little, don't demand vacation time or O/T pay, and may even put a smile on a few customers' faces. They are the deli cats.

http://gothamist.com/2007/12/21/cats_in_delis.php

I have been in delis with cats. I would much prefer a well behaved cat over mice and rats in a deli any day of the week, but alas, NY State and NYC law forbids animals in establishments that serve food. I would make a lousy health inspector since I think the law is silly.

I have cats and I'm not suffering from any illnesses from having them share my house - including the kitchen and dining room. Since my one cat has figured out the whole catching mice thing, I don't find mouse poop in my basement - I like that.

The Qatif girl was pardoned - she is the 19yr old gang rape victim who was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 20 lashes. The King pardoned her after much of the world criticized the sentence. Although some human rights critics think it isn't enough, it is a small baby step in the right direction. Hopefully other steps will follow.

I think we can all agree that he obviously has little regard for the lives of the dogs he had, raised and fought. Now all of a sudden, a black author equates outrage over his crimes to racism.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/20/ED6BU1EKB.DTL

Pamela M. Johnson is a fiction author. Perhaps she needs to stick to fiction, since she can't keep her facts straight. Obviously the San Francisco Chronicle is a rag and has no common sense in printing this piece of crap. I know I am not alone in my opinion, I read the blogs - not ONE person agreed with her assessment.

Fact is, I don't care what color Michael Vick is, he is a degenerate thug who derived pleasure out of another creature's pain. He surely can not claim that he needed the money, so it was obviously a grizzly hobby. Furthermore, stating that our condemnation of Mr. Vicks actions is racist is nonsense - the man is a celebrity. All celebrities are scrutinized.

Ms. Johnson's equating Mr. Vick's actions to anything an African American suffers in this country today is laughable. If someone were to take a black man, put him in a cage, only bring him out to train or fight to the death, the person subjecting him to those atrocities would be guilty of kidnapping and possibly murder among many other crimes. They would be going away for longer than Mr. Vick will be - so then, how is a dog treated better than a black man?

Ms. Johnson, hate to burst your bubble, but there are some things that have nothing to do with race.

So, Verizon ran a traffic service you could dial with "*1". It was a good service, a really good one. You entered a major route and then the number 1 for north or 2 for south (same with east or west) and they told you if there were any delays, how long, where, if you should be in a particular lane to get by and what caused it. Great service. Awesome service.

Then the state took it over.

The first bit of bleh came when I dialed "*1" and got "HELLO THIS IS LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR SO-n-SO. WELCOME TO ..." It's damn near deafening. Then they tell you to dial 511 instead of *1. That sucks because you have to remember that it's 5, not 4 or 6 or 9. Ok sure, fine, whatever.

Next they basically say "Yep, you're stuck in traffic and you will be for the next hour." No information on where the accident is, how to best get by (if possible), or ... most importantly ... WHY I'm stuck. Yes that last little bit is actually pretty important. I don't feel so bad when it's a 5 car crack-up than if it's just holiday-shopping congestion.

So yeah, way to take a great, free service and suck it up. Just so we can all hear "HELLO THIS IS LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR...."

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Propaganda? Unveiling truth? Biased? It's just as believable as an invisible monster in the sky. Be patient. It's two hours long.

If you *miss* your exit, just fucking get off at the next one and turn around mmm'k? Ripping over three lanes and slamming on your brakes, bringing a moving lane of traffic to a jacking halt... while you force your way into the the exit ramp is *not* the way to do things right.

You know there's really no damn excuse for not cleaning off the top of your car when there's a foot of snow on it. None.

The best possible ending is when the idiot stops suddenly and gets his windshield covered with snow as it all slops onto his hood.

The worst is when it flies off into someone else's windshield.

In either case the laziness should be criminal, and the person should be fined. Only *after* the cops stop them and make them clean off their car...

A few days ago someone had a gripe about Romney. I have a gripe about Huckabee. This former Baptist minister asked Romney if Mormons (by the way, it is actually LDS) believe that the devil (Lucifer) and Jesus are brothers. It would be so nice if these two could leave religion out of it. Does it really matter if Jesus and Lucifer were bothers? Neither one of these bozos get my vote.

Look, I appreciate when people give me a break when I'm trying to merge but honestly there are people with no damn common sense on the road. These are the people with only one person behind them and then a fifty mile open gap. Listen Buddy, I know you feel like you're doing me a favor but if you'd just freekin' gone on by I would have had *plenty* of time to merge. Really, I didn't need you slamming on your brakes to let me in, as I watch the eyes of the guy in the car behind you widen like soup plates as he desperately tries to stop in time.

On the other hand when I'm the person behind the jackass who feels like he needs to let the person on the cross street turn, hey what about me? Because I'm behind you I don't get the same courtesy? What about when I miss the damn light because *you* decided it was ok to stop everyone for the guy who was patiently waiting anyway?

Unless it's an endless stream of cars there really isn't an excuse to stop everyone behind you because you feel like being a Samaritan. The person behind you didn't get a chance offer their opinion, so please, just keep going on your way and give everyone else a break...

This little slogan has the panties of a few feminists in a bunch. Why? Because it was printed on the front of undies for pre-pubescent girls - "When you have Santa" was printed on the back. They thought it sent a message to young girl that they could use what was between their legs as currency.

"There's nothing quite like telling adolescent girls that they don't need to worry about finances since they have their very own moneypot between their legs," Jessica Valenti, the executive editor of Feministing.com, wrote on the panty blog post.

Me thinks someone needs to lighten up . . .

The blog in question: http://www.feministing.com/

One time, I drove from Boston to New Jersey in 2 hours and 56 minutes. Usually it takes a little more than 3 hours; I plan for 3.5.

I was in the car for 3.5 hours today, but I didn't drive to New Jersey. I drove home. A lot of people have long commutes. I work with people who live more than 50 miles away. On a bad day, I guess it could take one of them over 3 hours to get home. You know how far away I live?

6 miles. 210 minutes for 6 miles. Admittedly, I didn't take a direct route. In an utterly ineffective attempt to avoid bad traffic and steep hills, my route was closer to 8 miles. But if you do the math, you'll find that 8 miles in 3.5 hours is absolutely fucking awful. That was literally the worst thing that has ever happened to anyone ever.

I know what you're thinking when you see that title. Here he goes again. Another rant blasting the faithful for believing something.

Perhaps in part. Really, I'm blasting one faithful. Normally I try not to narrow it down so much, but this one is running for president, so I think he's earned a little bit of time in my spotlight.

Mitt Romney. He's got a problem with his campaign. His problem is that he's Mormon, and he's having some trouble from Christians who don't really seem to appreciate his religious choice. He avoid the subject as much as possible and does his very best to temporize the issue of his faith. Makes sense.

Normally, I wouldn't take issue with it. It's between him and the people that have a problem with his faith. That is, until he decided to take a swipe at me And those like me.

Yeah, I don't like that shit. So, Mr Romney, henceforth now as Shitball, is getting some of my literary wrath. What did Shitball say? Couple things. He started out saying that he wanted to protect all faiths from the rise of the religion of secularism.

The phrase religion of secularism is so uniquely moronic that just by using it, he ensures that I will never vote for him. You can't have a religion of secularism. The words don't make sense.

Secular: 'not pertaining to or connected with religion'

There is no fucking way to have a religion of it. The only purpose of using that phrase is to turn the secular movement in the country up to the level of a religious rival.

OK, I see what he's going for. Unite the faithful against the atheists in the spirit of the 'Attack on Christmas'. I get it. But really, do you want a president who's goal is to funnel the rage of the majority away from him and toward a minority? That's so fucked up I have trouble seeing how Shitball got this far.

But he's not done yet. No no. Shitball is too fucking stupid to let it pass at that. Honestly, this is the part that really pissed me off.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Mother fucking Shitball. I'm sorry, but seriously, what kind of a jackass is he? I mean... Shitball. Seriously. Do you have a fucking clue about things before you open your mouth? Ever? I mean, he's wrong. He's so fucking wrong, I'm having trouble finding out where to start in on him.

Shitball, freedom doesn't not require religion. I can be perfectly free and not need to acknowledge another mother fucking thing in my life. No divinity, no deity, no miracles. Even if I'm wrong and God smites me down, I will still have lived a free life. I'm free and I'm not religious. So fuck you Shitball. Secondly, religion doesn't require freedom. In fact, religion does pretty damn well without it. Even Christianity, a very free religion, is built around a concept of choosing to surrender that freedom to live by God's code. Beyond that, I offer the up the Taliban. They offered absolutely no freedom, and had an amazingly high amount of religious followers. Taken further, look into the Spanish Inquisition. Religion requires no freedom, nor does freedom require religion. They're not even remotely symbiotic. Freedom and religious flourish just well apart as they do together. They might even do better seperate.

So fuck you Shitball. I hope every single Christian smacks you down and tells you that they could never trust someone like you. I hope you're forced to defend your thoughts and religious views in every single debate and interview from now until the primary. And I hope the faithful run from you in droves. Then I hope you sit back and reflect on how it feels to be thrown under the bus for religious views. Fuck you Shitball. Fuck you.

I really dislike the whole celebrity worship mentality and I typically pay it no attention. I never realized that the budding fashionistas, the Olsen twins, were shamelessly bringing fur to a whole new generation. A generation that doesn't know the cruelty that is truly involved in the whole fur industry. PETA is leading the charge to try an educate them and their mindless minions - and this is a humorous way to do it, in my opinion.

http://www.peta2.com/trollsens/dress_up.asp

Even if you believe that animals should have no rights, you should be aware of how the animals are treated if you wear fur and make your own ethical decisions. I personally do not want to know the person who willfully causes pain and suffering to animals. There is a big difference between using animals for our benefit and being cruel. Over the last decade PETA has been pretty loonie - marginalizing themselves by trying to encourage people to adopt a vegan diet, etc., rather than focusing on the "ethical" part of their organization's name. I think this is a step back to their original roots.

We have a history making presidential race here in the US - a white woman and a black man are strong candidates for the democratic party. The closest we had come previously was Mondale/Farraro - and that would have been a woman vice-president.

We also have Oprah, who is revered to cult-like proportions. Her favor can make or break a book, a movie or a movement. Until recently, she kept her political leaning low-key. That was until now. Her sudden interest does make one take pause.

She typically rallies behind women's issues - Is Hillary not woman enough?

Is she only coming out to support Obama because he is black or because she sees something unique in his character that transcends color?

It's just something that makes me go "hmmmm..."

To catch a predator is a set of 'investigative reports' run by NBC Dateline. Basically, they film an incident where a sting operation is run on someone online in the hopes of catching pedophiles trying to find kids to have sex with. In a sad statement on our society, they seem to be pretty successful.

All and all, a noble idea. Fewer people out there trying to molest children is a good thing. Bravo, bonus points, and kudos.

But you know what, the show is just wrong, in my opinion.

Something in my brain has a hard time wrapping my head around turning this sort of police activity (the people involved are not police for the most part) into a spectator sport. In many ways, this is worse than shows like Cops because of it's focus on the sexuality of the 'minors'. Once they come and get the guy, they go through a Q&A section on camera where they review what they guy said online. They make sure to point out the fairly graphic (for broadcast TV) descriptions of sexual activities and positions.

It's supposed to come off as forcing the predator to admit to his crime, but it seems overly focused on the naughty bits to me. While I'm sure this is good for ratings, I find it kind of skeevy even if the 'children' involved are adults posing as jail bait.

To be honest, I think the entire show is a bit dodgy. First, they set it up to bring the guy in. Some people have gone so far as to say their methodology is borderline entrapment, but without the full transcripts, it's impossible to tell. They guy shows up, they bring him into the house, and they interview this guy. His lawyer isn't there. Face isn't blurred (at least not in the few segments I've seen parts of). I don't even know if he's been officially arrested or read his rights at this point. But there he is right there on camera. Anything he says will damn sure be used against him. It's damn sure not softball questions.

The problem is that all of this occurs outside of the justice system. The predator is thrown in front of public opinion long before the court system has finished with them. They present all of the evidence in a very one-sided manner. It may be true, but it's certainly not part of a fair justice system.

Is the overall goal good? Sure. I just don't think catching pedophiles should be used to boost commercial sales. I think the show is tasteless, crass, and asinine. It peddles it's wares to the lowest portion of the viewers psyche and then tries to pretend as if it's doing it for lofty noble reasons. It's not. It's all about ratings. The presentation of the segment and it's focus on the lewd and vulgar commentary drives that point home for me. Police work just shouldn't be a spectacle presented to viewers.

To be fair, most of these points are true of Cops and similar crime documentaries as well. I don't enjoy / watch them either. The nature and presentation of this just seems far more blatant and distasteful to me.

I appreciate when the doctor's office calls to remind me of an appointment. However, calling and leaving a message on my answering machine at home about an appointment that is the next business day is stupid, especially with that little caveat that if I need to cancel I should call, blah, blah, blah. Here it the problem - I get home and get the message AFTER you have closed, so what good does it do me? I tell every doctor I have to call me at work, cause that is where I am when they are open. Most do not listen giving me the most people don't want their doctor calling them at work bullshit. I just told you to call me there, its not a problem. If you really want to do me a favor, call me two days ahead - that way I get the message and I still have a whole day to call you back.

I don't watch it. I try to ignore it. This panel of women no doubt says a million things that are perfectly reasonable. I don't know or care. But then every so often, the show gives is a segment so amazingly stupid, one can not help being aware of it.

Such was the case this week. One of the woman brought up a History channel show about Epicurus. While describing the show she mentions that this was all in a time period before Jesus Christ.

To which one of the other chick, Sherri Shepard, said "They still had Christians back then."

Wha???

You mean, in 300 BC.. that's Before Christ.. there were Christians??? Really? How's that work, shit for brains?

Does she stop there? No. Of course not. Stupidity doesn't stop after one bump. It goes full tilt.

Shepherd: They had Christians, And they threw 'em to the lions.
Goldberg: I think this might predate that.
Shepherd: I don't think anything predated Christians.
Behar: The Greeks came first, then the Romans, then the Christians
Shepherd: Jesus came first, before then.

Seriously? She really believes this shit? Why do you think they called it the NEW testament? There was an OLD one too you know. A group of people called Hebrews used it. You might have heard of them. And you know that story about them being set free from Egypt? Moses, Commandment... all that stuff? Yeah, who do you think the Egyptians worshiped? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a man that wasn't born for over a thousand years.

Nothing predated Christians? How on earth could you be that stupid.

Oh wait, I remember where I've seen your name before. You also don't believe in evolution. Not all that unusual, even if it is misguided. But you went further than that. You think the world might actually be flat. Sure, Aristotle estimated the circumference of the globe in something like 300BC, but don't let that stop you. Being 2000 years behind the learning curve shouldn't bother you.

You're too dumb to live, I swear. Honestly, I want to know here you went to school so I can make sure no one else ever attends it ever. You're a blight on human intelligence. Seriously. You're like an anti-Stephen Hawking or something. Where he's smart, you're moronic.

I am really getting sick of seeing those little dancing people, real or animated, on the mortgage ads. I get it - your rates are so wonderful they make people want to dance. I just want to whack those little people over the head to make them stop doing the same retarded dance.