Was passing a phonebox today, and there was an advert on it for some service called "Faircall". No idea what it is, but it's a great name... you pay your money, and what do you get? Faircall! [nb this works better if you have a slightly posh accent. Repeat it to yourself a few times].
Which has prompted me to write down all the perfectly innocent words or phrases which sound rude to me. I think you have to have my head for some of these to work.
1. King. As in the famous Radio 4 panel game, "King Stupid"
2. Cough. When a lout is harassing you in the street, respond by saying "I say you there! Why don't you just cough?"
3. Quit. Such harassing louts are frequently quits.
4. Queue. If the lout responds with a stream of invective, laugh off his threats, and merely mutter "Queue".
5. Q, Q_2. In a physics lesson once, there were a couple of unknowns: the total charge, Q, the charge on the first capacitor Q1, and the second capacitor, Q2. Someone was getting a bit confused, so the teacher explained: "You're meant to be solving for Q!". To which I was tempted to add, "And for Q2!".
6. Who remebers "A Time to Dance?" Featuring Ronald Pickup as a dodgy old man, hitting on the youthful Dervla Kerwin. It was very popular at my school, and fans of the show were referred to in the playground as "Kerwin"s. Repeatedly. As in, "Kerwin! Kerwin! Kerwin! Kerwin! Kerwin!"
7. Some people have had the temerity to suggest that my name, Hugh Anchor, sounds rude. Ridiculous, although I have got into an unfortunate number of fights when I thought that someone was calling my name, and I replied snappily, "Yes, what is it?" To be fair, they had been shouting at me, but for a different reason, it turned out.
8. Hugh Jackman. Now this really is a silly made up name! I know he's supposed to be a serious actor, but what made him think he could get away with making people go around commenting on what a "Huge ackman" he has -- everyone knows that 'ackman' is street slang for... er... something rude.
9. Getting back to my original theme, I read a paper about "Fair Queuing" once. What do we want? A Fair Queue! Fair Queue!
10. Lastly, a classic joke. It's the first day of a major trial, and all the press are there to report on it. There is a commotion at the front of the court: an important document has been left behind in chambers, and the case cannot start without it. A young lawyer pipes up, "Fax it up!". The senior judge looks over his glasses, and comments "Yes, it does rather...".
Got any more everyday words that sound rude if you are a depraved freak? Keep 'em to yourself then, pottymouth.
20030516
20030515
20030514
SARS versus CARS
According to the Radio this morning, 140 people died from SARS in Beijing last month - about the same number as were killed in automobile accidents. Which made me wonder, why aren't we terrified of CARS? Consider the following:
Well, anyway, you get the idea...
According to the Radio this morning, 140 people died from SARS in Beijing last month - about the same number as were killed in automobile accidents. Which made me wonder, why aren't we terrified of CARS? Consider the following:
- CARS have infected every city on earth
- CARS can be fatal on contact.
- Wearing a face mask is no defense against CARS
- In most cities, you are never more than 20ft away from a carrier of CARS
- Children and the elderly are most at risk from CARS, but even a healthy adult can be injured or killed by CARS
- You can't tell by looking at someone if they have CARS
- Many people pick up CARS at airports
- CARS have been growing steadily through the years
Well, anyway, you get the idea...
20030513
20030512
Film review, courtesy of Robert Eger
X-Men Reloaded
A small band of rebels fight against the prevailing authority in an orgy of death, destruction, and computer animation. Am I talking about X-Men 2, Matrix 2, Stuart Little 2, Charlies Angels 2, or Hamlet 2? To be honest, it doesn't really matter. This movie is a rare achievement, one that it is entirely forgettable. It's pleasant enough to watch it for a couple of hours, but as you leave the cinema, it becomes apparent that the film left no lasting impression on you whatsoever. Like a snack, it gives you something to keep you occupied, but at the end of it you are still hungry for some real sustenance. This is quite an achievement: usually films are good or bad: to be some thorougly mediocre takes a real skill.
There are a couple of points of interest. I'm prepared to indulge any film that shows us Alan Cumming. I love watching Alan Cumming in movies, mostly because it gives me endless opportunities to use the same crap pun over and over and over again. Of course, this is not Cumming's finest hour; that honour goes to the sitcom "The High Life", where he played a camp air steward. Technically, that was his finest half-hour, being a BBC sitcom, but let's not quibble. It also featured the divine Siobahn Redmond, who was in that police corruption thingy with Neal Pearson, who was in Drop The Dead Donkey alongside Stephen Tomkinson, whose role "Spock" in All Quiet on the Preston Front was taken over by Alistair McGowan, once again demonstrating the truth of that age old claim that anyone can be linked to Alistair McGowan in under six steps. Anyway, Cumming spends the entire movie hidden in an entirely pointless blue costume, faking a central European accent that wanders from Berlin to Moscow, and points in between. This is certainly not to be confused with the last movie he starred in with Famke Janssen, Goldeneye, in which he played a Russian with a fake accent that wandered from Moscow to Berlin.
Hugh Jackman's sideburns deserve an oscar for best supporting facial hair; if you've seen the movies he appears in without sideburns (Kate and Leopold; Swordfish) then you'll know that the acting abilities don't lie with the actor himself. It was recently claimed that the term "sideburns" came about from a corruption of the name of General Burnside. It's one of those implausible things that people tell you and expect you to believe it for no good reason. At least he has a decent talent: knives sprout out of his hands when he gets angry, and steam shoots out of his ears. That must be handy, since it never means having to scrabble around in the cutlery drawer for a decent steak knife. Pity the poor x-men who have crappier talents: one kid's super-ice powers come in useful only for speed chilling beverages; Anna Pacquin demonstrates a talent for sucking off, but this refers to her ability to suck off the powers of other x-men, or to suck all the interest out of any scene she appears in. What must it be like for all the other x-men whose diverse special powers never get called on: the girl whose telepathy means that she knows exactly what someone is going to say, but only after they've said it, or the boy who can solve complex problems in abstract algebraic group theory.
Another interesting thing (look, I told you the film didn't have much to remark on, I'm really scraping the bottom of the barrel here) is the presence of spooky small girl character as the projection of another sentience: this peculiarly complex image is becoming something of a cliche, having been used recently in Resident Evil as well as an episode of Angel, besides the X-Men. Apart from this, the rest of the film is mostly an exercise in ticking of boxes: bad guy getting his brutal come-uppance? Check. Heroic self-sacrifice? Check. Garguantuan struggle between good and evil? Check. Mild twist that was signposted from the start? Check. Everyone finding a particular point where their power, and their power alone can save the day? Check. And so on.
Final verdict: Two thumbs, way down.
Robert Eger appears courtesy of "Robert Eger Hates The Movies Dot Com"
X-Men Reloaded
A small band of rebels fight against the prevailing authority in an orgy of death, destruction, and computer animation. Am I talking about X-Men 2, Matrix 2, Stuart Little 2, Charlies Angels 2, or Hamlet 2? To be honest, it doesn't really matter. This movie is a rare achievement, one that it is entirely forgettable. It's pleasant enough to watch it for a couple of hours, but as you leave the cinema, it becomes apparent that the film left no lasting impression on you whatsoever. Like a snack, it gives you something to keep you occupied, but at the end of it you are still hungry for some real sustenance. This is quite an achievement: usually films are good or bad: to be some thorougly mediocre takes a real skill.
There are a couple of points of interest. I'm prepared to indulge any film that shows us Alan Cumming. I love watching Alan Cumming in movies, mostly because it gives me endless opportunities to use the same crap pun over and over and over again. Of course, this is not Cumming's finest hour; that honour goes to the sitcom "The High Life", where he played a camp air steward. Technically, that was his finest half-hour, being a BBC sitcom, but let's not quibble. It also featured the divine Siobahn Redmond, who was in that police corruption thingy with Neal Pearson, who was in Drop The Dead Donkey alongside Stephen Tomkinson, whose role "Spock" in All Quiet on the Preston Front was taken over by Alistair McGowan, once again demonstrating the truth of that age old claim that anyone can be linked to Alistair McGowan in under six steps. Anyway, Cumming spends the entire movie hidden in an entirely pointless blue costume, faking a central European accent that wanders from Berlin to Moscow, and points in between. This is certainly not to be confused with the last movie he starred in with Famke Janssen, Goldeneye, in which he played a Russian with a fake accent that wandered from Moscow to Berlin.
Hugh Jackman's sideburns deserve an oscar for best supporting facial hair; if you've seen the movies he appears in without sideburns (Kate and Leopold; Swordfish) then you'll know that the acting abilities don't lie with the actor himself. It was recently claimed that the term "sideburns" came about from a corruption of the name of General Burnside. It's one of those implausible things that people tell you and expect you to believe it for no good reason. At least he has a decent talent: knives sprout out of his hands when he gets angry, and steam shoots out of his ears. That must be handy, since it never means having to scrabble around in the cutlery drawer for a decent steak knife. Pity the poor x-men who have crappier talents: one kid's super-ice powers come in useful only for speed chilling beverages; Anna Pacquin demonstrates a talent for sucking off, but this refers to her ability to suck off the powers of other x-men, or to suck all the interest out of any scene she appears in. What must it be like for all the other x-men whose diverse special powers never get called on: the girl whose telepathy means that she knows exactly what someone is going to say, but only after they've said it, or the boy who can solve complex problems in abstract algebraic group theory.
Another interesting thing (look, I told you the film didn't have much to remark on, I'm really scraping the bottom of the barrel here) is the presence of spooky small girl character as the projection of another sentience: this peculiarly complex image is becoming something of a cliche, having been used recently in Resident Evil as well as an episode of Angel, besides the X-Men. Apart from this, the rest of the film is mostly an exercise in ticking of boxes: bad guy getting his brutal come-uppance? Check. Heroic self-sacrifice? Check. Garguantuan struggle between good and evil? Check. Mild twist that was signposted from the start? Check. Everyone finding a particular point where their power, and their power alone can save the day? Check. And so on.
Final verdict: Two thumbs, way down.
Robert Eger appears courtesy of "Robert Eger Hates The Movies Dot Com"
20030509
Another exercise for the reader: why is it that, after getting a much faster internet connection, I am much less inclined to write anything here? I guess it's because I have a lot of other things on my plate. In fact, not only do I have a lot of things on my plate, but I have an entire additional set of crockery that's fully loaded. Which still doesn't explain why I spent most of the day at home in front of the screen downloading stuff and wandering around websites. Such as those nice people at ntk (no link provided -- find them yourself), who seemed to appreciate the crossword thingy. I feel a little glimmer of pride. Almost.
20030508
I prefer not to indulge in mere linkrepostage, except in order to pollute google searches with inappropriate responses, but I'm prepared to make exceptions.
Today's time wasting frippery: play "find the hidden words" in yesterday's
Guardian crossword solution. There's about 10 to find.
20030507
Yesterday brought another surreal ice-lolly joke. Someone is clearly trying to poison the minds of our children with this wanton surreality:
"When is a fin not a fin? When it's a dol-phin".
Admittedly, I can't think of a better punchline: "When it's a dorsal fin", or "When it's anterior" come to mind but don't quite work. But neither does this answer: I mean, dolphins do have fins. It's like someone has taken the classic joke "When is a door not a door? When it's ajar", and not really understood it. This does suggest a whole new unfunny type of joke: "When is a chair not a chair? When it's a chair-man" "When is a fish not a fish? When it's e-fish-ent" "When is a joke not a joke? When it makes no sense whatsoever", and so on.
Someone challenged my claim that punchlines taken in isolation can be just as amusing as the joke itself, if you've heard the joke before. So here are some punchlines; fill in the joke yourself:
i) "Yes, but Betty's got Parkinson's"
ii) "In Iraq"
iii) "When Tariq Aziz"
iv) "A stick"
v) "Oh, I thought you said "What about a water bottle, Waddle"
vi) "One of its legs is both the same"
vii) "With prices like this, I'm not surprised"
And so on. Much quicker than telling the whole joke.
Has anyone else played the same game that I've been playing today? You go to the website of a parcel delivery firm to track a package, and hit reload every five minutes as you see that the package has arrived at the depot... left the depot... out for delivery... until finally... delivery failed, recipient not in... because all this time you've been sat in an office watching your parcel on its way to your house where there's no one in? Does anyone know what the point of this game is, since you already know what the outcome is going to be?
"When is a fin not a fin? When it's a dol-phin".
Admittedly, I can't think of a better punchline: "When it's a dorsal fin", or "When it's anterior" come to mind but don't quite work. But neither does this answer: I mean, dolphins do have fins. It's like someone has taken the classic joke "When is a door not a door? When it's ajar", and not really understood it. This does suggest a whole new unfunny type of joke: "When is a chair not a chair? When it's a chair-man" "When is a fish not a fish? When it's e-fish-ent" "When is a joke not a joke? When it makes no sense whatsoever", and so on.
Someone challenged my claim that punchlines taken in isolation can be just as amusing as the joke itself, if you've heard the joke before. So here are some punchlines; fill in the joke yourself:
i) "Yes, but Betty's got Parkinson's"
ii) "In Iraq"
iii) "When Tariq Aziz"
iv) "A stick"
v) "Oh, I thought you said "What about a water bottle, Waddle"
vi) "One of its legs is both the same"
vii) "With prices like this, I'm not surprised"
And so on. Much quicker than telling the whole joke.
Has anyone else played the same game that I've been playing today? You go to the website of a parcel delivery firm to track a package, and hit reload every five minutes as you see that the package has arrived at the depot... left the depot... out for delivery... until finally... delivery failed, recipient not in... because all this time you've been sat in an office watching your parcel on its way to your house where there's no one in? Does anyone know what the point of this game is, since you already know what the outcome is going to be?
20030506
"Dude, you're getting Adele!"
"All in all, you're just another prick in the mall"
Um, yeah. So, as far as I can work out from the below ad-profile, I am supposed to be constantly thinking about buying a new car/SUV/truck (actually, I don't drive), and driving it to the movies or to the drive-thru branch of a fast food restaurant (can't stand fast food, and don't eat burgers on principle). So much for targeted advertising. I suppose it's my fault for watching Buffy & Angel, targeted at teens, and Comedy Central, targeted at... I dunno, really. People with a sense of humour? If I watch TV on weekend mornings (esp the cartoons) then I would get a load more toy & game ads. Likewise, I'm sure I normally see many more ads for mobile 'phones: perhaps they are just proportionately more annoying than other ads, so I don't see them.
What I'd really like to see advertised is an ad-blocker. Something that just switches the sound & visuals off while the ads are on, so I can read my book for a few minutes. Or, even better, seamlessly edits them out. If I can stop getting annoying pop-up ads on the web by using a different browser, why can't I rid myself of them on TV too? Obligatory blog link to adbusters
Some quick google observations on adverts: if you did a google search for motwani then you used to get a googlead to go and work for google (rajeev motwani was the advisor at stanford of larry page & sergei brin, and provided VC for google) -- but this seems to have stopped working since I last tried it. he is still the top hit for that search though.
Secondly, try a google search for sex: looks like no one has bought the keyword "sex" -- or perhaps google don't sell it? Now try some dirtier words: search for "oral", "oral sex", "anal" and "anal retentive". You'll notice that the searches that are potentially innocuous: "oral" and "anal retentive" don't have any ads, but the others do: looks like the advertising engine is getting smarter. I might investigate further if I get bored. Like tomorrow.
"All in all, you're just another prick in the mall"
Um, yeah. So, as far as I can work out from the below ad-profile, I am supposed to be constantly thinking about buying a new car/SUV/truck (actually, I don't drive), and driving it to the movies or to the drive-thru branch of a fast food restaurant (can't stand fast food, and don't eat burgers on principle). So much for targeted advertising. I suppose it's my fault for watching Buffy & Angel, targeted at teens, and Comedy Central, targeted at... I dunno, really. People with a sense of humour? If I watch TV on weekend mornings (esp the cartoons) then I would get a load more toy & game ads. Likewise, I'm sure I normally see many more ads for mobile 'phones: perhaps they are just proportionately more annoying than other ads, so I don't see them.
What I'd really like to see advertised is an ad-blocker. Something that just switches the sound & visuals off while the ads are on, so I can read my book for a few minutes. Or, even better, seamlessly edits them out. If I can stop getting annoying pop-up ads on the web by using a different browser, why can't I rid myself of them on TV too? Obligatory blog link to adbusters
Some quick google observations on adverts: if you did a google search for motwani then you used to get a googlead to go and work for google (rajeev motwani was the advisor at stanford of larry page & sergei brin, and provided VC for google) -- but this seems to have stopped working since I last tried it. he is still the top hit for that search though.
Secondly, try a google search for sex: looks like no one has bought the keyword "sex" -- or perhaps google don't sell it? Now try some dirtier words: search for "oral", "oral sex", "anal" and "anal retentive". You'll notice that the searches that are potentially innocuous: "oral" and "anal retentive" don't have any ads, but the others do: looks like the advertising engine is getting smarter. I might investigate further if I get bored. Like tomorrow.
20030505
Introducing... the all new...
Well, the reports are in... for a week, I watched television. And, during the advertisement breaks, I carefully noted how many advertisements I saw, and recorded into which category they fell. The idea is to figure out what sort of consumer I am supposed to be, based on the demographic that is being targeted in these commercials.
Perhaps most surprising to me was the sheer quantity of advertising fed to me. I reckon that I watched for between 10.5 and 11 hours last week (which actually seems kind of low to me, but there you go... since I'm paying $40/month for satellite, this means that I pay around $1/hour that I'm watching). During this time, I recorded seeing
393 adverts. That's about 36/hour. This shouldn't be too surprising. As anyone who spends too much time downloading and watching US TV shows from illegal internet copyright violating web sites will tell you, the typical "hour long" TV show is 41-43 minutes in duration, and the average half hour show takes only 21 minutes. That means that there is 17 minutes of advertising space available, so 36 x 30 second on average commercials comes to about the right amount.
Now the part you have all been waiting for: the breakdown of the figures.
I'll try to analyze what kind of a person I am supposed to be later, but in the meantime, here are some additional counts for advertisements that I saw in the course of a week.
Well, the reports are in... for a week, I watched television. And, during the advertisement breaks, I carefully noted how many advertisements I saw, and recorded into which category they fell. The idea is to figure out what sort of consumer I am supposed to be, based on the demographic that is being targeted in these commercials.
Perhaps most surprising to me was the sheer quantity of advertising fed to me. I reckon that I watched for between 10.5 and 11 hours last week (which actually seems kind of low to me, but there you go... since I'm paying $40/month for satellite, this means that I pay around $1/hour that I'm watching). During this time, I recorded seeing
393 adverts. That's about 36/hour. This shouldn't be too surprising. As anyone who spends too much time downloading and watching US TV shows from illegal internet copyright violating web sites will tell you, the typical "hour long" TV show is 41-43 minutes in duration, and the average half hour show takes only 21 minutes. That means that there is 17 minutes of advertising space available, so 36 x 30 second on average commercials comes to about the right amount.
Now the part you have all been waiting for: the breakdown of the figures.
| Quantity of adverts | Advertised Item or Product |
|---|---|
| 95 | Other television programmes |
| 55 | Cars, trucks and SUVs |
| 35 | Fast Food |
| 34 | Electronics, games and websites |
| 31 | Movies and DVDs |
| 24 | Soda, beer and other drinks |
| 23 | Hair and cosmetic products |
| 14 | Medication and drugs |
| 13 | Snacks and snack foods |
| 12 | Financial and money |
| 11 | Telephones and telephony |
| 8 | Clothes and clothing |
| 7 | Travel |
| 6 | Home improvement and decorating |
| 6 | Cable and satellite channels and packages |
| 4 | Self-improvement: exercise and education |
| 15 | Other |
I'll try to analyze what kind of a person I am supposed to be later, but in the meantime, here are some additional counts for advertisements that I saw in the course of a week.
| Quantity of adverts | Advertised Item or Product |
|---|---|
| 0 | Books, newspapers, magazines or anything remotely literary |
| 0 | Theatrical productions, operas, art galleries, museums or anything else "high culture" |
| 0 | Fruit, vegatables, cooking products or healthy eating (except in the context of salads offered at burger restaurants) |
| 0 | Toys, games (except computer games), sports (except televised) |
| 0 | Modes of transport such as bicycles, trains, buses, walking - apart from cars, SUVs and planes |
| 0 | Political adverts, pro- or anti-anything (including drug and alcohol awareness) |
20030504
"The presidential candidates are beginning to butt heads..."
Heh.
My week long advertisement consumathon is almost done, will post the results here when it is.
I just noticed that DSL is LSD backwards (presumably the rest of the world noticed this about a decade ago). Althogether now... "DSL is like the internet... on acid!" (xref to the relevant FistOfFun sketch also from about 10 years ago).
Heh.
My week long advertisement consumathon is almost done, will post the results here when it is.
I just noticed that DSL is LSD backwards (presumably the rest of the world noticed this about a decade ago). Althogether now... "DSL is like the internet... on acid!" (xref to the relevant FistOfFun sketch also from about 10 years ago).
20030503
The Top 10,000 Rejected Onion Headlines
1. New online satire website not as funny as the Onion used to be.
2. Ordinary event reported as it were important
3. Onion style becoming tired, repetitive
4. Another reference to March 1974 Edition of Oui Magazine
5. You get the idea, there's no need to repeat it thousands of times over...
6. ... unlike some people...
1. New online satire website not as funny as the Onion used to be.
2. Ordinary event reported as it were important
3. Onion style becoming tired, repetitive
4. Another reference to March 1974 Edition of Oui Magazine
5. You get the idea, there's no need to repeat it thousands of times over...
6. ... unlike some people...
20030502
Thanks to RjY and Matt for the links. Interesting to see that this gets 13 hits through RjY who labels this "weird shite" to 1 hit via Matt who says that he likes it. Anyway, those links should get this into search engines soon... I should explain, I'm only doing this as a way to collect bizarre search queries. Difficult to compete with the site that comes #1 for "hamster pipe arse" in Google, though.
20030501
Fun with mathematics
I saw a poster recently for a country music channel, which made the following claim
"Tattoos: Eminem - 8 Dixie Chicks 27".
Well, that's all very well, I thought, but there are three Dixie Chicks, so that's hardly a convincing argument that they have more tattoos than Eminem. But, then I applied the probabilistic method. There is an average of 9 tattoos per Dixie Chick. Therefore, there must exist a Dixie Chick with 9 or more tattoos, more than Eminem. Isn't mathematics wonderful?
I saw a poster recently for a country music channel, which made the following claim
"Tattoos: Eminem - 8 Dixie Chicks 27".
Well, that's all very well, I thought, but there are three Dixie Chicks, so that's hardly a convincing argument that they have more tattoos than Eminem. But, then I applied the probabilistic method. There is an average of 9 tattoos per Dixie Chick. Therefore, there must exist a Dixie Chick with 9 or more tattoos, more than Eminem. Isn't mathematics wonderful?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
