How To Spot A Psychopath

May 10, 2008

Are you suffering from Cyborg Pattern Baldness?

Filed under: Humour, Games

The Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of Enemy Territory: Quake Wars are coming out in a few weeks. They’re advertised by a new, and surprisingly amusing, promotional-movie blitz.

(Note also the boring old site at enemyterritory.com.)

These clips are not, I’m sorry to say, up there with the simply fantastic Team Fortress 2 “Meet The…” series. But they still definitely have their moments.

The above embeddable video thingy (which, if you’re reading this long after I wrote it, has probably disappeared) at the moment only lets you view one of the videos and then makes you click through to stroyent.com. And even the one easily-seen video is only available in crappy-res.

So here is the Gamershell download page for that first video. The file is available on umpteen other download sites too, of course.

And here’s a YouTube version of the first video, in case the above one doesn’t work:

There’s also an officially-uploaded-by Activision version here, but they decided to disable embedding for it, because they’d like fewer people to see it, or something.

OK. Here’s the next clip:

(Official Activision YouTube version here, downloadable version here.)

And finally, here’s the main promo video for the game, which applies to the PC version as much as it does to the console ones:

(Official un-embeddable YouTube version here; GamersHell download version here.)

This main clip is called “Monster Truck Style”, for fairly obvious reasons. But this close-miked presentation now, inescapably, makes me think of the Brawndo commercials (and yes, I know).

ETQW itself is, when you actually play it, only mildly silly. It’s a pretty straightforward team-on-team game, obviously descended from its interesting predecessor. It’s got a good amount of class variation, plus vehicles, to appeal to the Battlefield Whatever crowd.

I’ve never played Team Fortress 2 - sorry, not enough hours in the day. I’m sure people will still be playing it a couple of years from now, so there’s no great rush. Besides, I haven’t quite finished with Tribes 2. But I’m still perfectly ready to believe that TF2 is the current king of the team-on-team genre. A million dorks can’t be wrong.

ETQW, though, has distinctly different teams, rather than the different-only-in-colour teams of TF2. It also has vehicles, and slightly, but significantly, lower hardware requirements. So I’d say it’s well worth picking up the ETQW demo to see if you like it, even if you’re already nursing a TF2 habit.

April 15, 2008

Now do “Star Trek”, Mr Mittens!

Filed under: Humour, Music, Strange Tales

Yep, it’s a cat playing a theremin (via). This theremin has what sounds like a pretty nasty Stylophone sawtooth waveform, as opposed to the classic, more mellow, otherworldly-violin

…but it’s a theremin nonetheless.

Musical cats do not, of course, usually show any awareness that there’s a connection between what they’re doing and the noises that’re being made. The cat walks down the piano because that’s how you get to the windowsill; the cat plays the theremin because it enjoys bopping the interesting springy wire.

(Oo! Bill-Bailey-narrated theremin documentary {via}! See also the film documentary Theremin - An Electronic Odyssey.)

April 12, 2008

But wait! There’s more!

Filed under: Humour, Strange Tales

Just when I thought that the guy who

1: threatened to sue me when I cancelled his eBay listings which featured pictures ripped off from my review of the ETime Home Endoscope
2: declared that it didn’t matter, because the endoscopes “break down all the time” so he didn’t care about not being able to sell them
3: cussed me out in comments on that post, registering two abusively-named commenter accounts to do so
4: created a whole BLOG dedicated to abusing me, the regrettably-no-longer-existent dansdataisanarrogantwanker.blogspot.com
5: took pictures of himself sticking the ETime product up his bare bottom (NSFW picture archived here!), text in which declared “This is Dan testing out the new pencam! I love it up my ass!”
6: then gave up and actually took his own damn pictures of the product in question like he should have in the first place, for some reason now not featuring his bare bottom, and resumed selling ETime products on eBay as if nothing had happened

had ceased to provide me with amusement, this turned up:

From: Wayne <waynenatt@gmail.com>
To: Dan <dan@dansdata.com>
Subject: advertising

Dan,
I hope to put the past behind and ask how much it would cost to advertise our ehe pencams listings on your pencam review page?
( link to our ebay store )
http://stores.ebay.com/endoscopes-endoscopy-borescopes

I can pay by paypal.com

Please advise

Sincerely,
Wayne

Well, gee, I don’t know.

What do you think, faithful readers? Does Wayne strike you as the kind of solid, ethical businessman I should be advertising?

I mean, you’d all be fine with buying stuff from him, right?

March 5, 2008

Takin Suckaz Assets

Filed under: Humour, Music

I’m probably the last person in the world to discover this, but the TSA Gangstaz music video is, I’m given to understand the kids today are saying, da bomb.

NOTE: Naughty NSFW dirty offensive words!

And now, Why I Wrote This Song, by the rather Jewish perpetrator, Zach Selwyn:

There haven’t actually been all that many responses so far, but this one right here is perfectly awesome.

(Via.)

March 1, 2008

Web security through threats of violence

Filed under: Nerdery, Humour

The Daily WTF just ran a story about a company that sells listings in one of those highly questionable “business directories”, and has a Web site with hilariously poor security.

(Hint: If you want to “password protect” a Web page, don’t put the hard-coded username and password in the source code of the login page. Oh, and don’t put the URL of the otherwise wide-open “protected” page in plaintext in the source either, or people - by which I mean, “bright eight-year-olds, or unusually well-trained monkeys” - may just copy and paste that URL to their browser’s address bar.)

So far, so unremarkable.

But you need go no further than the Featured Comments below the story to find the start of a good old-fashioned Internet flameout by the owners of the site.

How dare you “hack” our site, this directory is our livelihood and we forbid you to say you think it’s overpriced, we know where you live you druggie bitches, et cetera.

If you like this sort of thing, then this is the sort of thing you will like.

February 24, 2008

It is… the FORBIDDEN link!

Filed under: Humour, Strange Tales

Australia is not alone in having some pretty hilarious copyright laws. But the Australian Copyright Council site presents some quaint little variations on the common themes which have just given me considerable entertainment.

The ACC’s a non-profit company, largely government funded, whose purpose it is to provide Aussies with advice about our somewhat dotty local copyright laws. Their information sheet on “home taping” (the Australian government hasn’t quite noticed hard disk video recorders yet) is about as straightforward as I reckon it could be (PDF here). It makes clear that the ACC’s as bewildered by the current legislation’s weirdness as all the rest of us. Fair enough.

But that weirdness seems to be leaking out, into the ACC’s own brains.

I can’t really say I’m surprised. Get this, for instance:

Here in Australia, it is currently legal to make exactly one backup copy of software which you have purchased, as long as there’s no copy protection on that software, because Australia now has DMCA-ish anti-circumvention laws.

So far, so (relatively) sane.

But you’re not allowed to back up anything but the actual program files.

To quote the Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet on that subject (PDF here), “you would be entitled to make a backup copy of a disk or CD-ROM that only contained computer software, but not a disk or CD-ROM that included other copyright material, such as a computer game, music, text or images” (emphasis mine).

So, apparently, you can copy anything that ends in .exe or .com off your program disc… but nothing else. Not even the readme file.

Which means, going by what they seem to be quite clearly saying, you can’t actually make any kind of real backup of something like a game disc, which these days is likely to contain only a few per cent of executable code by volume, the rest being taken up by the all-important graphics and sound data, without which the game will not work.

Actually, it’s likely to be impossible to legally back up anything but the installer program on most game discs, since the rest of their content is likely to be a few giant compressed files containing all of the stuff which the installer unpacks and copies to your hard drive. Some will be “software” by the copyright-law definition; most will be “other copyright material”, and you probably can’t separate them. Not that it’d be worth doing if you could.

Thinking about this sort of thing on a day-to-day basis appears, as I said, to have affected the Australian Copyright Council’s grip on reality.

I base this assessment on the fact that they forbid the world to directly link to any of their information sheets, or apparently even to any of their Web pages, unless you ask first.

So, because I’m sad to say I neglected to ask them (what if they said no?!), I was not in fact allowed to do this. Or indeed even link, without asking, to the page that forbids you to link to pages without asking.

People all over the world have been laughing about stupid linking policies since long before the Stupid Linking Policies site was established in 2002, but the darn things just keep popping up. They’re legally ridiculous and don’t even serve a social function, since anybody can tell in a matter of seconds who’s linked to them (well, as long as someone’s clicked the link) by just looking at their server logs, or using Google Analytics or any of a zillion other Web stats services. So you don’t even need to put a “if you link to me, please send me an e-mail” note on your site, much less angrily FORBID people to link to you unless you’ve explicitly permitted it.

You’re also, by the way, not allowed to print more than one copy of any of the ACC’s documents, without asking them for permission.

So if you print a copy and lose it, remember to ask before printing another one!

I suppose this is marginally better than the companies that refuse the world permission, under any circumstances, to link to all but one of the various pages which they carefully and deliberately made available for the world to see on the Web server they carefully and deliberately connected to the Internet, and didn’t even “protect” with a cockamamie page of legalese with an “I agree” tickbox at the bottom.

(It is, of course, also easy to make your Web server refuse deep links. If you don’t, then I suggest that you must not actually be terribly serious about FORBIDDING them, no matter how many capital letters you use).

But the Australian Copyright Council are supposed to be staffed by “experienced specialist” intellectual property lawyers. And yet here they are pretending that it’s possible to forbid people with whom they have no contractual relationship at all from downloading a file from their Web server without clicking through from the front page.

(And they’ve been doing it since 2006. Back then they said “Please ask us before linking to this website so that we can tell you about our URL and descriptors policy”. That’s less rude, but no less dumb.)

If someone’s harvesting content from your site and presenting it as their own, or hotlinking your images, or even just framing your whole site within their own (has anybody actually done that since, like, 1998?) then you have grounds for complaint, at the very least.

But “link policies” are like putting a statue in your front yard and then telling passers-by to sign a contract before they look at it.

My advice to people considering a linking policy: Mix it up a little. How about forbidding people from viewing your source code, linking to any page on your site or even mentioning that your site exists?

Awesome!

February 18, 2008

THIS legal threat, I’m less worried about

Filed under: Humour, Scams, Strange Tales

To be perfectly honest, I don’t really care very much if someone rips off the pretty pictures I take of products and uses them for their eBay listings.

If you ask me for permission to use my pictures for commercial purposes, I’ll cheerfully license them to you for a small fee.

But most people don’t ask, of course. They just do a Google Images search and take whatever they want.

That doesn’t actively take money out of my pocket. It just deprives me of royalties from someone who clearly doesn’t want to pay royalties anyway. Which is why I don’t very much care.

(Cue ISO Standard Piracy Argument in 3, 2, 1…)

Anyway, a little while ago, I reviewed a pen-shaped close-focus webcam thing called the ETime Home Endoscope. It’s a neat gadget.

There aren’t many pictures of the ETime Endoscope online, so if you image-search for it, you’ll get a bunch of my pics on the first page of results.

This, and the absence of any decent handout pictures from the people who make the camera, has made my pictures pretty much the only option for someone who wants to sell ETime endoscopes on eBay or wherever but (a) can’t be bothered taking their own pictures and (b) doesn’t want to pay for someone else’s pictures.

Since I’m now signed up with eBay’s Verified Rights Owner (”VeRO“) program, though, all I have to do to get eBay to delete any listings that copy my stuff is send them an e-mail. A couple of days later, the offending listings will be kaput.

So every now and then, when a reader points out a ripped-off listing to me or when I find one myself, I do that.

I did that with one seller of the Endoscope a while ago. Their listings disappeared, and they didn’t post any more that I’ve noticed. Apparently taking pictures of the stuff they sell cuts into their profit margins too much to make it worthwhile, or something.

The other day, I found that another eBay seller, “endoscopes.endoscopy“, was doing the same thing. They appear to be under the impression that putting their own advertising text on top of my picture, and/or sticking three of my pictures together with some others from the ETime site, is enough to make the pictures theirs.

Even as I was typing this, the above PhotoBucket-hosted image mysteriously disappeared. Clearly the work of someone who’s quite sure that everything they’re doing is perfectly above board!

I saved it, though. Here’s the top portion of their composite image, which contains no pictorial content besides my images and ones from the ETime site.

Their PhotoBucket page at the moment still contains several versions of the composite image. From the text on the variants, it would seem they’re also listed on eBay as “usb.etime.pencams“. And here, here, here and here are their direct copies of my images, except with the aspect ratio screwed up and text slapped on top.

Oh, and apparently they don’t like people copying images from their own site about hockey! It would appear that people “who steal all our photos and ideas” are “punk asswipes“!

Couldn’t have put it better myself, guys!

I’m speculating, above, about how these people’s reasoning works, because it’s kind of hard to figure it out from this:

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:36:42 -0500
From: “usbscopes@gmail.com” <usbscopes@gmail.com>
To: dan@dansdata.com
Subject: removing our ebay listings

Dear Dan,

1) We don’t appreciate you removing our ebay listings of e-time pencams off ebay!

2) We are an authorized ebay distributors of etime ehe pencams.

3) We didn’t use any wording or images off your website!

4) If you have our listings removed again, We are hiring an attorney in Australia to take you into court. So please be prepared!

endoscopes.endoscopy

After sending me this, they listed another ten or so auctions with the same ripped-off pictures in them.

I told them the exact pictures they had copied, and that I took those pictures in my house, with my camera, for my review of the product. And I filed another VeRO complaint, and got all of the new listings pulled too.

Their cogent response:

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:47:21 -0500
From: “Steven Jordan” <usbscopes@gmail.com>
To: Dan <dan@dansdata.com>
Subject: Re: removing our ebay listings

see you in court asshole

(…followed by the quoted text of my e-mail, which it seems did not make much of an impression upon them.)

I’m sure these guys are hopping on a plane from Florida right now. I’d better make some space on my calendar.

And yes, I’m aware that this could have been much, much funnier.

I must say, I'm quite upset.

But I have to work with what I can get.

February 12, 2008

Big sites pick up the story!

Filed under: Humour, Scams, Cars

M’verygoodfriend Joel Johnson at gadgets.boingboing.net could, I think it’s fair to say, be more impressed with the CEO of Firepower International.

(I’m basing this assessment on the idea that “blowhard dickbag” is an insult. Do tell me if I’m wrong.)

Rob Beschizza of the Wired blog has also picked up the story, taking the time to Photoshop the Firepower logo a bit, and writing a disappointingly sober piece on the subject of Firepower-esque scams in general.

Oh, sure, it’s all very sensible, Rob. But how are we supposed to take you seriously if you haven’t called anyone a cockmonger?

February 3, 2008

“My wife, my children, and the nation of Romania.”

Filed under: Nerdery, Humour

YouTube comments should, of course, be ignored at all times. But the few comments for this video are works of incandescent genius compared with the usual collection.

One commenter, however, says “90,000 taxed out of 100,000. That wasn’t a joke. One of the things that drove Reagan into the Republican party.”

That commenter probably said that because he (or she) does not understand income tax brackets.

Income tax brackets seem to be one of those concepts that just slither out of people’s mental grasp, like daylight saving time and aeroplanes on conveyor belts.

Another leading indicator of this misunderstanding is when someone expresses the opinion that making more money, so that you move into a higher tax bracket, means you’ll have less money to take home than you would if you’d stuck with your lower income.

The simplest kind of progressive tax does indeed work this way, and imposing such a tax on income would indeed be crazy unless there were about a million tax brackets for incomes between $1 and $1,000,000. If the tax on income to $5000 is 20% but it shifts to 40% when you make $5000.01, you’ll lose a lot of money if you get a raise from $5000 to $5100.

What actually happens, though, is that each bracket’s tax rate only applies for the money you earn within that bracket.

So if you make $10,000 a year, and the country where you live has a $0-to-$5000 20% tax bracket and a $5000.01-to-$10,000 40% tax bracket, you’ll pay a total of $3000 in tax.

The above sketch is from 1961, when the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was still in force in the USA; it ran from ‘54 to ‘63. At that time, the top US tax rate was 91%.

But that only applied to the portion of your income above $200,000 a year. $200,000 in 1961 dollars would be worth an easy 1.4 million bucks today, and was worth even more in comparison to the average wage.

Which isn’t to say that 90%-plus isn’t a pretty hilarious top tax rate, but it’s not as if some hardworking surgeon making $100,000 was taking home less money than a lazy plumber on fifteen grand.

In fact, the take-home pay of a person making $100,000 in 1961 in the USA, with no deductions, was $32,680. They would pay $67,320, not $90,000, in tax.

A 67.32% total tax rate still isn’t anything to sneeze at. But it ain’t 90%, either.

January 29, 2008

The Six Ugliest Space Lego Sets

Filed under: Nerdery, Toys, Humour

I’m sure every kid who, like me, spent hours on end poring over Lego (or Meccano) catalogues, was not doing so in simple appreciation of the masterful design that went into the models.

No - we were looking at the parts. Looking, and evaluating.

“It’s five more dollars for this spaceship over that one, but you get a big engine cone instead of the medium size, and one of the cool new blue spacemen instead of just another red one…”

And so on.

I developed a great enthusiasm for Technic Lego as well, but Space was my first love. And it had some weird sets.

Every now and then there’d be something that was just so super-cool that the parts in it hardly mattered, seeing as you never took it apart. The Tri-Star Voyager qualified in that category for me, and the old Space Shuttle (less confusingly called the Two-Man Scooter outside the USA) was a contender too.

The real entertainment was to be had at the other end of the aesthetic scale, though.

Sets that you built, looked at, said “I’m eight, and even my spaceships look better than that”, and dismantled at once, lest their ugliness prove to be contagious.

Let’s kick off with Space Lego’s greatest miss from 1985, the unmentionable, or at least un-named, set 1968

Lego set 1968

…which was apparently built from the wreckage of one or two crashed Gamma-V Laser Craft (which look completely fantastic; my Gamma-V was another of my never-taken-apart models).

Lego Interplanetary Shuttle

And then there’s this, the Interplanetary Shuttle. It’s apparently a mail delivery vehicle… with a control panel in front of the driver, facing away from him.

Different Space series had a whole genre of funny looking little robots, the king of which was the mighty 6951 Robot Command Center.

Lego Robot Command Center

The Robot Command Center is the only one on this list that I actually owned - because as a parts pack, it was superb.

As a model, thought, it was atrocious. It was not only bizarrely misshapen; it also had things on it that didn’t even make sense.

Those big blue double-canopy jaw things on the side were the most obvious. I suppose the grabber arms were meant to lob rocks into them or something.

(I used them as prison cells, and as spaceship canopies for ships flown by robots, who had no need for anything as primitive as looking out the window.)

More subtle were the finned rocket cylinders embedded, for no clear reason, in the Robot Command Center’s ankles, just above the skid-jets (borrowed from a more sensible vehicle) on which it, presumably very unsteadily, skated across the landscape.

(Completely embedded rocket parts were unusual, but Lego made a habit of putting rockets on ground vehicles. OK, perhaps the nozzles on this dude’s classic Shovel Buggy are actually a horn that plays The Yellow Rose of Texas, but I doubt it. I mean, that wouldn’t work in a vacuum, would it?)

The Robot Command Center spawned some more Big Ugly Robots. 1994’s Robo Guardian was a notable example…

Lego Robo Guardian

…with a total of ten wheels, four of which were unable to touch the ground.

(Did they at least touch the other wheels, and so rotate in the opposite direction? Surely they weren’t just hanging there…)

But unquestionably the Ugliest of the Big Ugly Robots hit the market three years later.

I present, with pride, the Robo Stalker.

Lego Robo Stalker

Egad.

But wait, there’s one more.

One very special, very rare, very ugly spaceship.

Even most real Space Lego enthusiasts have never seen one of these in the flesh, because it was only available, in 1983, as a special promotion with (of all things) Persil laundry detergent. Well, that was the deal for the UK version of the set, anyway - it was apparently available in other countries with some similar deal.

On the plus side, you didn’t have to send in any box tops - though you did have to send in £9.95, which is more than £24, about $US50, in today’s money.

Lego set 1593

Behold - Set 1593!

(This is another one, like #1968, which has a set number but no name.)

Once you’ve finished wondering how drunk these little Lego men were when they decided to be seen in this thing, I really must insist you check out the full-size original image on the Lugnet site here, because this baby’s just full of entertaining details.

The cockpit, for a start, has holes in it. Not just the ones you can see above the wing - there are two more on the sides below the wing, and one more gaping hole on the front of the cockpit under the wing. So it looks as if these little guys are going to have to keep their helmets on for the entirety of their mission. And they’d better watch out for space-birds.

Set 1593 also features two big main engines mounted on 2x2x2x2 brackets, which are flimsily attached to one-stud-wide rails. And there are ladder/grille pieces (radiators?) hanging down off the body in four places.

And, the finishing touch: On the top of the nose of the ship, directly behind the big skeletonised dish, is a two by two turntable.

With nothing on it.

It’s just a little bit on the front of the ship that can turn round and round.

(Oh, and behind the front dish on the underside of the ship is what every sane Lego kid agreed was a dual laser gun… pointing backwards, at the pilot, through that hole in the front of the cockpit.)

As far as play value goes, this set is decent. That top-heavy land-crawler thing hooks onto the back of the ship (which doesn’t make it look much better…), and there’s a sort of base-station… cupboard… contraption, and various accessories.

But boy, is it ugly.

To make things even weirder, set 1593 apparently contains all of the parts from the perfectly decent 6880 Surface Explorer and the classic, Concorde-ish 6929 Starfleet Voyager. It would appear the latter crashed into the former at full speed, and 1593 - with its very own box and instructions - was the result.

But, as with every other one of these sets, you can always break it down for parts. And maybe build yourself a Surface Explorer and a Starfleet Voyager.

It’s not as if even the ugliest of Lego sets is a stupid Death Star that turns into a giant Darth Vader robot for no reason at all. Any Lego set can be reassembled at will into whatever you want.

Which could be why they’re still around, after fifty years.

Older Posts

Get your free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome