Inspired revulsion!
A Wii shock to the system for parents
I can't let a piece on video games from The Devinator slide without at least a mention. After all, the use of simile to describe the evolution of Sega never gets old.
But the family image is obviously something Sega wants to jettison, a little like a former child star who poses nude, does drugs and engages in performance self-harm to prove she has "grown up".
The company's output in recent years seems to be the basis of at least some creativity. This takes me back!
Actual people hate sega too! They even have real reasons and know what they're talking about because they've uh PLAYED VIDEO GAMES BEFORE. Coincidentally being half-correct doesn't make her any less crazy of course, but there is definitely some entertainment value to be had. Yeah I know this barely counts as content but the same is true for GOVERNMENT MEALS and you fuckers manage to swallow those JUST FINE.
Popularity: 13% [?]
Echoes of Y2K heard by stupid ears.
Apparently the issue of climate change is comparable to the Y2K bug. I can definitely see how that's the case if you ignore the obvious differences in available evidence and, well the fact that they are not comparable AT ALL. Y2K was entirely speculative, the product of circulating one crackpot's baseless claims. It happened to also make a very good story. Scientists generally don't share the same low standards as journalists. This comes from a clear conflict between scientific methodology and the act of making shit up.
Just to clarify.
Climate change- SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE, OBSERVABLE, NOT BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Y2K- NONE OF THE ABOVE.
You people don't get to be part of the sceptics club. It's amazing how often ignoring solid evidence is worn like some intellectual badge of honour
Popularity: 13% [?]
Optus Insurance Wargh
One of the most inefficient processes I've encountered in a while.
To elaborate, my iPhone stopped charging a couple of weeks ago, so I went into the store on Friday 31 July, stood around for 20 minutes then was told to call the insurance line to get a claim number. Did so and they took my phone and told me it'd take 5-10 working days to get repaired, sent out, all that jazz, and that I'd be contacted when they needed money for things (because Optus Insurance doesn't have access to the regular Optus billing facilities, that'd just be silly).
Until today I had heard nothing from them, and it'd been more than 10 working days, so I call them. They inform me that after 10 working days they have 'assessed' my phone as requiring replacement, and that they've sent a letter on Friday asking me to send them back a cheque, but that I could also pay by credit card in any number of means.
They sent a fucking snail mail letter. Instead of calling me on the contact number I specifically gave them, or emailing me using the email Optus already has for me. They sent a fucking letter which takes days to arrive at my house, asking me to mail back a cheque, which takes days to reach them.
I then give my credit card details to the operator to pay the $50 excess and she lets me know that a new phone will be available at the store for collection in "about 12 working days". I just called the store, they have my exact model phone in stock, but there's apparently something special about the new phones insurance sends out so I now have to wait until 2 September and I *might* be able to ditch this nokia brick for the phone Optus are still charging me extra in handset fees for.
Popularity: 24% [?]
So we sent WAVE AFTER WAVE OF MEN AT THEM
About three weeks ago the NSW Ombudsman released a report on the efficacy of sniffer dogs in NSW. Interesting point being the actual overall success rate of sniffer dogs detecting drugs on people, which was 24%. (Oh and the document was also made in Pages)
That's right. These dogs are accurate 24% of the time. Which means 76% of the time individuals suffer an embarrassing and invasive search for no real reason. Lets look at some of the powers that the police have under the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) act of 2001:
The Drug Dogs Act provides for general drug detection with a dog to be carried out in specified places without a warrant and in other public places only if police have obtained a warrant under section 8. To apply for a warrant a police officer must have:
reasonable grounds for believing that the persons at any public place may include persons committing drug offences.
Also, those warrants, well unlike normal warrants:
The Drug Dogs Act provides that Part 3 of the Search Warrants Act 1985 ‘applies (with any necessary or prescribed modification) to a warrant issued under’ the Drug Dogs Act. The Drug Dogs Regulation specifies that section 15A and 16 of the Search Warrants Act do not apply to warrants issued under the Drug Dogs Act. Section 15A is a requirement that police must announce their authorisation to enter premises and give a person on premises an opportunity to allow entry.
Section 16 of the Search Warrants Act states: A person executing a search warrant shall produce the warrant for inspection by an occupier of the premises if
requested to do so by that occupier.Since this section does not apply to warrants issued under the Drug Dogs Act, it would seem that police have no obligation to show a copy of the warrant to persons they search during its execution.
So you could technically be searched illegally by the police with a sniffer dog without a warrant and not have the right to know.
There are some limitations on powers, for example:
To use the drug detection dog on a public street, police must first have obtained a warrant under section 8 of the Drug Dogs Act. The warrant will specify the areas where the drug detection dog may be used and the dates and times during which the dog may be used.
Which is, you know, a slight safeguard for our civil liberties, but shit starts to get pretty trippy after that:
Police may use drug detection dogs on railway stations or trains along most CityRail routes without obtaining a warrant. Police often patrol in station ticketing areas and on station platforms. When a train arrives the handler will often position the dog in a place where passengers need to walk past the dog to exit the railway station. Once a person is indicated by a drug detection dog, the person might be searched on the spot, or police might conduct the search in nearby toilets, a room allocated for police use, or another area of the station away from public view.
Or:
Police do not need a warrant to use drug detection dogs at licensed premises. Once in the premises, it is common for one police officer to speak with the manager or licensee of the premises. Sometimes police will also conduct a licensing check while they are at the premises. If the venue is very crowded, dark and loud, this can present difficulties for the handler and the drug detection dog. Sometimes handlers will not take their dogs into particularly crowded premises.
So if you own a place and decide to get a liquor license, your property is no longer your own!
Police may use drug detection dogs without a warrant at dance parties. We observed two police operations at dance parties. One dance party had a number of indoor dance venues and a large outdoor area with stalls, food outlets and areas to ‘hang out’. At that operation, police patrolled the queues of people seeking to enter the party as well as outdoor areas using the drug detection dog. If the drug detection dog indicated a person, police generally either took the person to a more private area of the grounds or took the person to a room allocated for police use to search the person. Rarely was a person searched where the indication occurred.
Having hundreds of cops stop the scourge of drugs at 'dance parties' is worth the grotesque impingement of our civil liberties? Hardly.
A further insanity of this document is the way in which the authenticity of the results of the dogs is upheld: The classifications for those who do not have any drugs on them, but have been indicated by the dog is "Drug contact admitted" or "Drug contact denied". Great going, gentlemen.
There is some good news, the ombudsman's report does take into account complaints made against the police for the use of drug sniffing dogs:
False Indications: 24 Complaints (47%)
and
Civil Liberties: 24 Complaints (47%)
This is over the period of five years. It's simply not good enough. The fact of the matter is these dogs do not have the efficacy rate to trust such a grotesque infringement on our civil liberties. Sure they should be used at the borders or in ports to enforce the government's morality there, but using a system proven to be flawed and treating it as a necessity is despicable.
If there is one thing you can take from this post, it is this: You need to complain. You need to contact the NSW police ombudsman EVERY time you see a sniffer dog out and about and complain about how it is a complete waste of the police department's time and money.
The police's time is finite, and it should be directed to crimes far more serious than people wanting to use drugs. If a single assault, rape, or murder goes unsolved because of a lack of police presence or resources due to this grotesque waste of money and time, then it shows just how deeply fucked up the morals of our current government are.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Drugs. We’re Hoping You Don’t Know Anything.
"I don't need no drugs in my system 'cause my dancing and didge sets me free."- Bruce AKA Boy BC.
Reading through the material the Australian government has provided to the public as part of various drug campaigns has been very effective in both testing my patience and draining my hope that policy disgraces of this variety can't persist for much longer. The fact that these campaigns are not subject to any serious scrutiny seems to suggest a level of misinformation about drugs that surprises even me. How anyone could process this shit and not be left at the very least confused is something I am having difficulty comprehending. To better illustrate what exactly I mean, here's some of the content on heroin from the most recent government mindfuck, entitled "Where's Your Head At?" (An understandable question).
Heroin is an 'opioid', which is a term that refers to substances similar to the drug morphine. Street heroin is mixed with other substances, such as glucose, caffeine, sugar and paracetamol. These additives can be dangerous when added to heroin.
Hold your questions, there's more...
Because there's no way to tell the purity of heroin being used, users can't gauge the amount they are taking and can accidentally overdose. Heroin overdose is one of the leading causes of death in Australia in 18 to 34 year-olds, and non-fatal overdoses are common amongst heroin users.
Other than perhaps the imprecise definition contained within the first sentence, this is accurate information. That is, information about the heroin supplied illegally under current conditions. It conveniently ignores two simple questions. Why is street heroin mixed with other dangerous substances, and why is there no way to tell the purity of heroin being used? The answers to these questions are simple (The market is furious), yet they expose the huge flaws in the conclusions that the government is attempting to convince the reader to accept. From that point, the real causes of the drug problem that don't receive any form of acknowledgement in the campaign materials at all become easily identifiable. The agenda falls apart from there, and the most important question of all eventually arises-
Wouldn't it be more effective to legalise all drugs?
Of course, getting that far also means the realisation that by maintaining a policy of drug prohibition the government is willingly causing countless preventable deaths. Oh dear!
Popularity: 11% [?]
Anti-Vaxxers, please, wake up.
It would seem through current media portrayals that anti-vaxxers are different from you and I learned individuals. They are crazy loons who live on communes and spend the days snorting trails of each others' faeces off wooden planks carved by aborigines mid menstrual cycle. They worship UFOs and pretend to be wolves on the prowl for particularly difficult scrabble words of a sunday night. This could not be further from the truth. They are normal people much like you and I, they enjoy a tipple, they understand the news but they all have one correlating factor. They are, for the most part, big fans of alternative medicine and alternative theories on reality.
Unlike the vast majority of the effete, erudite libertarians reading this blog like it validates their views when it's clearly just an echo chamber for a series of auto-fellating fuckwits, I have actually come into contact with anti-vaxxers that I would say I consider genuinely intelligent. I used to work for a man who, along with his wife was skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry and for good reason. They had both worked for years as drug company reps, they knew every hook, every crook and were disgusted with what that industry offered them. I understand their position and I feel sympathy for their plight, but I feel that it is time the vast majority of you swarthy libertarian atlases got in touch with what you really need to learn. How to deal with cunts who parse reality completely differently from sane human beings.
I was talking to my ex-employer years ago and he commented on the fact that he had never had his children vaccinated. This was during my halcyon days where I was young dumb and full of cum. I even regretfully admit that I accepted the argument that "vaccination is basically homeopathy" as a reason to stop being pro-vaccination at that time. I retract this admonition freely and in good faith. I was, to put it in couched terms, a complete fucking moron. This is not so these days. I'm fully aware of the dangers of those sectors of society that choose to not vaccinate and those individuals that have issues with vaccination purely because they are so utterly, flabbergastingly idiotic that they don't understand basic medical procedures. Again, this I can deal with.
What I can't deal with is out and out fabrications. Vaccines do not contain mercury and thimerosal is not a substance containing mercury. I'm not going to argue this entire case because the ENTIRE FUCKING SKEPTICAL COMMUNITY DOES THIS BETTER THAN I COULD EVER POSSIBLY HOPE But I hope to make an actually decent point.
We, those who are fans of the LeClerian ideals of freedom, truth, beauty and a sound currency (A currency so sound you could rest a pint on the fucker) are well aware that we are maligned, judged and pushed away from the mainstream of society. This is the territory that comes with holding our particular set of beliefs and it is a badge of efficacy and authenticity we wear proudly like the scars of the socially awkward against the columbine grenades. What is incredibly important is that we, as libertarians and liberty-seekers and even those blessed anarchists that read this pile of detritus and scrap, understand that our enemy's enemy is not our friend. Just because someone may say they dislike central banking or they have issue with governments controlling their lives or they want a sound currency does not mean they do our cause or our values any favours.
Anti-vaxxers for the most part are complete fucking morons. This goes withour saying. If you pay attention to any video containing Meryl Dorey (Head of the AVN or AUSTRALIAN VACCINATION NETWORK) you'll realise that this woman is attuned to that disconnect with reality creationists get high off. She is completely and utterly batshit fucking mental. She's entirely valid to her opinion and entirely able to promote it but she is still completely and utterly batshit fucking mental.
Freedom?
Popularity: 13% [?]
Stormfront post of the day!
I think this is something I'll just start, the best post on stormfront from the day:
Hey guy n girls,
A coupple of weeks ago the Mrs and i decided we'd upgrade the ol Foxtel package by having two extra IQ boxes installed for the kids along with the return path option allowing us to watch the Box office movies ect without having to call Foxtel.
This afternoon the subbies came out to do the instalation Both being of asian apearance ( i couldnt tell you exactly what kind, they all look the same to me).
Now at first i was ready to stop them at the door, tell them they wern't welcome here and to turn around and head to thier next job.
My wife managed to calm me down alittle, well enough to allow them to begin work and i've headed out the back to clean up the yard as we'd had some heavy wind the previous evening.After 10 mins or so she's come out and joined me stating that she felt uncomfortable with the two in there speaking thier own language in between bouts of leering at her so ive come back inside.
Immediatly they both stop thier conversation and resume the work wich lead me to believe they were quite obviously on about something untoward.At that point out 7 yr old daughter comes into the rumpus room , curious as a 7 yr old is , just to check out whats going on, she's interested in how everything works as alot of kids are at that age.
Instead of a friendly smile and a short explanation..or atleast something to humor the kid with as you'd think any adult would , this ANIMAL has the audacity to growl at her and tell her to leave ther room.( the one that spoke english anyway, the other just kinda glared)At that point ive told them they had lost the job and that it'd be going to someone else ( and i'll be insisting on a white subbie).
They have refused to leave at first and i actualy had to march the non english speaking one out , i guess the coupple years moonlighting as crowd controll security finaly payed off.This all said and done, ive learnt my lession. I will no longer accept any service (unless its life and death, and only then begrudgedly) from ANY non white animal in this country. Theese..things looked at my daughter as if they wanted to kill her for daring to speak to them in her own house , infact the more i think about it the more i'm fairly certain i was close to unspeakable violence , glad they left when they did.
I'm wondering if anyone else has had a simaler experience involving kids and non whites looking at white children as if they are trash?
Gid.
Popularity: 50% [?]
And while you weren’t looking
...the nanny state got even larger.
A new crackdown by New South Wales police means crossing the road while listening to an iPod could land you with a fine or imprisonment.
Last year police issued 460 fines to pedestrians not paying attention to road safety.
Distracted pedestrians who cause accidents are not only liable for a $100 fine, they could also face more serious charges and, ultimately, jail.
Police have said they are trying to counter an alarming rise in the number of accidents caused by distracted pedestrians with their new approach.
They have said they hope tough penalties will encourage common sense.
NSW Traffic Services Commander John Hartley said: 'If they walk in front of a car, make the car swerve to miss them and the car hits a tree and kills or injures the driver or passengers in that car, they could be liable for very serious offences.'
And traffic safety groups say manufacturers are partially to blame.
'These companies have been ignoring their responsibilities for far too long.
' These devices are lethal,' said Harold Scruby from the Pedestrian Council of Australia.
If you're relying on hearing alone to determine whether it's safe to cross you're a fucking douchebag in the first place, not even the blind do that. Wait, maybe the government should issue everyone with dogs to tell them when it's safe to cross. Or build fences along every road, everywhere. And make pedestrians wear seat belts.
Popularity: 14% [?]