Friday, November 28, 2008

This Should Cause You To Be Concerned.

As I think it's a very accurate comparison.

H/T to Guido

Labels: , ,

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Guest Blogger

Silas has very kindly allowed me, The Devil, to guest blog today. The fucking muppet. Still, it has just been our two year anniversary, so I think it is about time he gave me a little voice. Well, at least a voice that y'all can read without having to check the comments!

Firstly. Silas has a new addiction. May I refer you to his blog posting of Tuesday, October 24, 2006, where he said Sudoku ... what the fuck's that all about? He now does it religiously every day. The shame. Not so secret anymore!

Secondly, shoes. I have made repeated requests on many comments for y'all to convince Silas to buy me yet more shoes, after all, a girl can never have too many, can she? Yet not a one of you has complied. Do you not realise that, as the devil, I own your souls, and you could help me own more soles (Silas's gag, so if you think it's shit, blame him, if you think it's great, kudos to me!)

Thirdly, join us on our crusade to mock the believers in this world. They need telling that blind faith is both dumb and pathetic. (Silas is reading this over my shoulder and correcting me as I type. This may be the last posting on this blog, as I may be forced to slice him up in to tiny pieces and feed him to my decking!)

Fourthly, I wanted to just say to all those of you that read this blog, there is a wonderful button at the top of the page that says next blog. Press it. Go on. I dare you. Chances are there will be something far more interesting, certainly less ranty, and prolly much more entertaining (you might even get to see pictures of naked women!)

Lots of love. Ok. I lie. I can't love. That would imply I have a heart. Ambivalence to you all.

The devil


Wednesday, November 26, 2008

New Blog

I've just added a new blog to my repertoire, basically aiming to annoy as many Christians as possible.

The Devil sends me a huge amount of Mormon and regular Christian blog sites, and some of them are worthy of a slightly wider audience for their sheer comedy value alone.

If anyone else finds any religious blog sites worthy of derision, do send them to me via the comments section of the new blog.

I thank you.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Update On Becca's Angels

Just if anyone's interested, there are two new - and probably final - updates on Becca/Bob's blog.

Peter and Bet are going to concentrate their future efforts on the Melanoma Awareness Project(MAP) website from now on, and attempt to get the MAP DVD into every school in the country.

I'd like to wish them the best of luck with that.

Labels: , ,

This Made Me Laugh

Yes, I know, I'm a sick man.

Palmeiras coach Vanderlei Luxemburgo has suffered a broken arm after being attacked by his club's own fans. "It was the attitude of vandals," he told reporters.

Not funny so far, I grant you. Comedy bit follows.
"If we had known Palmeiras were going to lose 5-2 against Flamengo two days later, we'd have broken one of his legs as well," declared a fan's spokesman.
Now *that* is supporting your team.

H/T The Fiver

Labels: , ,

Friday, November 14, 2008

Just Something That Caught My Eye

In the on-going debate about the death of Baby P, I see that a former social worker, Nevres Kemal, claims she sent a letter to the Department of Health in February 2007 stating her concerns about Haringey Council's failings with regard to child protection.

The bit in this report on the BBC that caught my eye, however, was the following:
Ms Kemal has been banned from discussing the matter after local authority took out an injunction against her.
For what, exactly? Being right?

How can a local authority take an injunction out against a former employee (or indeed anyone else) for discussing something SHE brought to THEIR attention?

Labels: , ,

To Amuse The Devil

Via Old Holborn's site but originally from the Guardian's comment section regarding the death of Baby P.
Dear Ms Featherstone,

I think the people who should truly say sorry for such events are the opinion leaders of the Guardian. Please allow me to explain.

Last week I visited (as a doctor) a family in a council estate. The mother was concerned about her 12 year old son. She was very pleased that her older son was now on incapacity and would therefore do well for himself in terms of money. There is nothing wrong with this older boy that makes him incapacitated, but that is another story.

She also had a 14 year old daughter, who while I was there, constantly argued with her mother demanding money for cigarettes. The three children had three different fathers, all absent. The kids, while I could see were still children, gleamed with malignant insolence. I can see them turning into damaged adults.

I feel sorry for the trap they are in – the trap created directly by the welfare state whereby the family, and all those in the neighbourhood, see welfare as a lifestyle option. They live in squalor but have more wealth than most people I knew in India; they certainly have more material comforts than I ever had growing up in Delhi.

The Guardian describes such families as poor. The Labour party wants to throw money at the family. The Guardian readers blame Margaret Thatcher for this state of affairs, smug in their modern pieties, their intellectual laziness, and their stupidity masquerading as sanctimonious concern. I used to work with slum children in Delhi; they had very little, but even the most physically disabled amongst them made an effort.

There is no hope for Britian. Civilisations dont die, they commit suicide. And before they commit suicide, they read and believe the Guardian.

I truly and deeply feel sorry for all the children who are the victims of the welfare state. Things are much, much worse for the slum children in India, I saw more dignity among them and certainly greater hope.

I am not sure if you will understand this message. I am too tired to explain further. Either you will get or you wont. Either way, it will make no difference to anything.
The Guardian, the harbinger of doom.


Possibly A Bit Late

As it's already climbed back above $300 a share, but if Google drops back below that figure, then you may want to consider buying into it. There's a very good chance - IMHO, although I am not a stockbroker, thank fuck - that you could double your money within 12 months.

You can track Google's price here

Labels: , , ,

25 Years? Are You Quite Sure About That?

I was watching - as usual - the BBC early morning news, then the ITV early morning news before I left the house this morning. I forget which channel it was, but there was a report about the TV show "The Bill" having celebrated its 25th Anniversary.

"Wow" I thought, "it doesn't seem that long since it started."

And while technically it was over 25 years ago that the pilot episode was broadcast (on August 16th 1983) the series itself only started on 16th October 1984. Or just over 24 years ago.

Not today, you understand, but October 16th.

So I'm somewhat surprised to have seen a relatively long piece on whichever news programme it was, telling me The Bill had been going for 25 years. When it would have been more appropriate to tell me that on August 16th, or to wait until October 16th next year.

Plus, it's not as if there's nothing else going on in the world, is it? Cunts.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Anti-Drinking Campaigns

The above image comes courtesy of the Drink Aware Trust and is on display across London (and probably the rest of the UK) at the moment.

It suggests that just by looking at your recycling bin your friends & neighbours can condemn you for being drinking too much alcohol. Given the amount of interest the Council also have in your recycling and trash habits, you can also infer that the Council will be coming to the same conclusion: you drink too much.

The text accompanying the advert on the website says:
Recycling. You feel good when you do it, don't you? You're doing your bit to save the planet after all. But do you ever look at the wine and beer bottles you're putting out and wonder 'just how did we manage to get through all that since last week...?'.
But hang on just a tick, shall we?

First up, we only have recycling collections every fortnight. Over the course of two weeks there's a very good chance that even following the Government's own recommended alcohol intake (which they made up, by the way) a family of four (as children are allowed to drink alcohol from the age of 5) could get easily get through the amount of bottles shown in the advert.

Secondly, what the fuck has my alcohol consumption got to do with the Government? I pay tax on what I buy, the manufacturers pay tax on what they produce, and the Council Tax gets paid towards the cost of collecting the empties. So what's the problem?

If I cause myself or anyone else an injury or become a nuisance, then I should expect to be punished accordingly. There's no "second hand drinking" argument like there was with smoking (even though that has yet to be proved to exist either) so I fail to see why the Government or the Council should be interested in the slightest.

More to the point, it would be beneficial for young children to see alcohol being consumed (in moderation, naturally, and at appropriate times) around the house as they are growing up. They're then less likely to drink to extremes once they are legally allowed to go into pubs and clubs (assuming there are any pubs still open once they get to 18).

This Nanny Government has decided that alcohol consumption is bad for the general public, so they're on their way to making it socially unacceptable. So children won't be exposed to it, won't know how to deal with it, and will, in all probability, get fucked off their face as soon as they possibly can. Which will let the Government go to the next level and introduce prohibition. And that was a raging success in the States, wasn't it?

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, November 10, 2008

A Company You Can Trust

From The Daily WTF

"I can't decide if the biggest WTF is using poster board, stencils and multiple colours of what appears to be chalk in their quest of 'moving technology forward' or the fact that they apparently made a mistake while putting the 'N' in consulting and just decided to use a bit of masking tape to correct it, rather than flip the board over and start again."

Labels: , ,

One For The Geeks

If you're not a geek, you might just want to look away now. And I recommend here if you want to amuse yourself.

If you're reading this, I'm guessing you *are* a geek. And you may well be interested in the following. There is an online tool which allows you to look up the possible serial numbers and WPA keys for SpeedTouch modems (as used by BT). Handy, if you were planning on having a back-up internet connection but didn't want to go to the expense of getting a second line fitted.

Okay, it's a hacker's delight. And it's NOT a brute force attack, all you need is the SSID.


Labels: , ,

Quelle Shock, Not.

In a completely unsurprising move, a report by a group of MPs has called for the end of happy hours and a curb on supermarket's setting alcohol prices at a loss.
The Home Affairs select committee said reckless drinking was placing a heavy burden on police resources. One possible solution for England and Wales, MPs said, would be legislation setting a minimum price on alcohol. Scotland's new licensing laws already include powers to fix alcohol prices to stop cut-price promotions and happy hours, and ministers in Edinburgh say they might seek to set minimum prices for drink.
Interesting to note at this juncture that the bars in Westminster are subsidised. And you can still smoke in them. Unlike your local bar, that can now apply for reduced business rates (not that anyone actually told the bar owners, and the tax office initially turned them down) due to the smoking ban

Keith Vaz (a twat of some renown) chairman of the committee, said retailers must end a "pile it high, sell it cheap" culture around drink. He accused supermarkets of flouting the spirit of a voluntary code on alcohol sales.
"We cannot have, on one hand, a world of alcohol promotions for profit that fuels surges of crime and disorder and, on the other, the police diverting all their resources to cope with it," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"At the moment you have a situation where so much of police time is taken up dealing with alcohol related crime. Happy hours lead to unhappy communities. Loss leaders in supermarkets cause real misery to city centres on a Saturday night."
Couple of things there Vaz, you cunt, if the booze sold by supermarkets is being sold at a loss, then it's not going to be making them a profit, is it? Secondly, I would suspect that the majority of the booze sold by supermarkets is consumed at home, not in a city centre, particularly as it's now illegal to consume alcohol - or carry an open container of alcohol - on public transport.

Thirdly, and a point I've mentioned previously, it is illegal for supermarkets - or indeed any group of companies - to set prices among themselves. We have (or had at least) a veneer of competition in business. If I can sell something slightly cheaper than you can because I have economies of scale or a better business model, then I can and indeed *should* sell it cheaper than you do.

To force supermarkets to sell alcohol above a minimum price doesn't encourage them to improve their methods to lower prices for the consumer, does it? No, any improvement will only increase their profits and, as a Labour politician, you should be against that. It would also lead to an increase in the RPI, which will also look bad for you. You talentless fuckwit.

Still, don't let that worry you. Nanny knows best. A Home Office spokesman said: "We know the police and the public remain concerned about alcohol-related disorder. We have given the police, licensing authorities and trading standards officers a range of tough powers to tackle alcohol-related disorder, including on-the-spot fines, confiscating alcohol in public places and closing down premises that flout the law.

"Alongside this, the Department of Health has commissioned an independent review on the effects of alcohol price, promotion, consumption and harm which will be published shortly." And you can pretty much guarantee that report isn't going to be terribly positive, can't you?

You may be a smug non-smoker who happens to like a drink or two. You don't go into bars, yet you supported the smoking ban in there. You drink exclusively at home and you haven't once been arrested for causing a disturbance or public nuisance. And now you will feel the power of Nanny knowing best. Nanny doesn't want you drinking, so you will have to pay more for your booze than you previously did.

And there's nothing you can do about it. Except plan a revolution.

Labels: , , ,

The Stepford Society

I will be posting something about the current crackdown on alcohol very shortly, but thought this article from Computer Weekly would be of interest.

In a keynote speech to delegates at the City IT and IT Security Forum, Ian Pearson, a former BT "futurologist" and a chartered fellow of the British Computer Society, spoke of a backlash against the government's preoccupation with surveillance technologies. He warned that IT suppliers who collaborate with the government on the increasing surveillance of law-abiding citizens face a public backlash, and may be at risk of acts of violence, including the smashing of computer centres.
Within five years Pearson predicted that the government's crackdown on law-abiding people could lead to marches in the street, demonstrations outside some computer centres and - if the government takes no action - targeted acts of violence.
I've said it before, and I will say it again, it worries me that it's mainly people involved in IT that seem to be the most aware of the totalitarian state in which we are living. The Register often points out the worrying use of IT to monitor the general population, and here we have Ian Pearson saying that IT will be used to monitor the law-abiding citizens. Can everyone else please wake the fuck up?

He told the invited audience of some of the UK's largest IT suppliers and users, "By 2012 to 2013 tops you will see a technology backlash in the major population. Why is it relevant to you? Because if your firm is providing services to government authorities, which help the government to crack down on law-abiding people, you are in the firing line. Be very careful you are on the right side of the line when the [backlash occurs]. You need to be very careful indeed."

Indeed you do. Come the glorious Revolution the piano wire/lampost combination will be a fetching look for politicians and their assorted hangers on, we don't need geeks up there unless it is strictly necessary.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, November 07, 2008

Is It Possible?

I'm not a one for physics, but could someone please tell me if it's possible to use someone - say Hazel Blears - as a weapon to attack someone else - say Jacqui Smith - and that they would both end up dead?

I suspect that if I was to pick Blears (also known as "Bleats", and, my personal favourite, "Ginger Haze") up by her legs and swing her around my head (as one would in the Olympic Hammer event) and walk towards Smith to get their heads to connect at great speed, then I should achieve my aim. If anyone has any improvements to this plan that don't involve conventional weaponry or piano wire, use the comments section below. If anyone has any objections, please address them to \dev\null\ or just fuck off.

My ire, you see, has been raised by both these demented women in the space of just 24 hours. Smith for the reasons outlined in the post below (oh, and then claiming that people come up to her "all the time" asking her why they can't have an ID Card now - you want to watch out for those people Jacqui, they're obviously mental). Blears for the comments I read regarding bloggers that I shall outline here.

In a closed meeting, Blears gave a speech - ironically in a meeting about political disengagement - which said that corrosive cynicism, fueled by politically nihilistic blogs and a retreat from dispassionate reporting, is endangering British political discourse and fueling growing political disengagement in Britain.
And that "in recent years commentary has taken over from investigation or news reporting, to the point where commentators are viewed by some as every bit as important as elected politicians, with views as valid as cabinet ministers."
Yes, you did read that correctly. Blears is suggesting that the comments of the general populace of this country shouldn't be viewed as being as important as the delusional wittering of a cabinet minister. That would be the population who votes for the politicians who then go on to become said cabinet ministers, by the way, in case you had forgotten. Said by a woman who has never had a proper job her entire life.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your cynicism levels.
"Unless and until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."
So it's the fault of bloggers that a large percentage of people in this country think politicians are greedy, lying, grasping cunts with no idea - or concern - how their decisions affect real people?

Oh really? I was under the impression that politicians being paid a fucking fortune to do fuck all besides rubber stamp "initiatives" from the EU while simultaneously stuffing their own pockets with "expenses" (despite working in a building with a subsidised bar - where you can still smoke - and restaurant) and looking forward to the best pension scheme in the fucking country, might have caused some of the cynicism love, but that's just me, I guess.

And just how, exactly, do you propose getting "more disparate voices" involved in political blogging, you short chipmunk-faced bint? Political bloggers aren't elected, the popular ones are popular because they report stuff people are interested in. They aren't necessarily sponsored or rich, they're just people who want to complain or praise politicians. The fact more people complain - and more people are interested in the ones who complain - surely suggests there's something going wrong at your end, rather than at ours.

It's not as if there's any way of stopping people setting up a blog and ranting. Oh wait, that's your fucking proposal, isn't it? Funnily enough, something the EU proposed earlier this year, a licence for bloggers.

So to get more "people" (and by that I'm taking that you mean "more people who agree with you") involved in political blogging, you're proposing to introduce lengthy bureaucratic paperwork requiring full disclosure of personal details, and then a fee. A fee which would therefore reduce the number of people blogging? Or a fee you would waive if the person applying agreed with your policies?

But how would you stop people from just blogging anyway? Oh, I see you're proposing to take control of Nominet. So anyone with a .uk domain name could be instantly taken offline (and presumably shot) by the government? Sounds remarkably like state censorship, that, or something North Korea would do.

You are a cunt, Blears, a cunt of the highest proportion. I shall batter Smith to death using you as a mace and I shall be happy, covered in the blood and bone of the pair of you, grinning like a fucking loon. Then I will go after the one eyed son of a manse, and force him to eat the shit that comes out of the corpses of both Smith and Blears. When he is sated - or I've decided he is - I'll cleave his fucking head with a hatchet.

I am the Revolution, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 06, 2008

ID Cards, Every Little Helps

Rather interesting - if you happen to be a geek, like wot I am - news today on the introduction of ID Cards.

First up, the Government seem to have backed down a bit from their initial proposal to force all airside workers to have ID Cards. Well, Government issued ID Cards that is; they currently all do have ID Cards - issued to them by the airport after they've undergone a far stricter vetting process than the one the Government is proposing for the new shiny Government issued ID Cards. But I digress.

The Register is saying that the plans for ID cards for airport workers are in deep trouble, with the news that next year's rollout has been downscaled to an 18 month trial at only two airports, Manchester and City of London. According to a report in the Financial Times, the Home Secretary is due to announce the trial on Thursday but that no agreement has yet been reached on whether or not the trial would cover existing workers, or only new employees.

According to the FT, Manchester and London City only signed up to the scheme "in principle" after the government agreed to provide a further £500,000 for pre-employment checks for airport staff. Nor, says the paper, is there any guarantee that the scheme will be extended to the rest of the airline industry after the trial concludes. Opposition within the airline industry has been virtually unanimous, however, and the sudden appearance of a lengthy trial at two smaller airports - as opposed to a general rollout across the industry - suggests strongly that the Home Office is losing this fight.

The Home Office, however, denied the 18-month trial was a retreat on plans to issue all 200,000 airside workers with cards: "We made it clear when we published the Delivery Plan in March 2008 that ID cards for critical workers would be 'starting in the second half of 2009' and we are on track to meet this commitment," a Home Office spokesman said. No2ID have said it was a "transparent attempt to save ministerial face" after anger from airport unions and airline bosses.

The Unite union, which represents airport workers, has said staff are already extensively vetted before being given airside passes. Airport unions have been resisting the scheme, saying workers would have to pay £30 for a card to do their jobs. Airlines including British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and EasyJet, also spoke out against the plan, saying it was "unjustified" and would not improve security.

So the Government think it's a good idea, and everybody in the affected industry says it's a stupid and unnecessary idea which will do nothing to improve security.

You can see how this is going to end, can't you?

The Government will claim (but without giving any information as it would "undermine efforts by the security services") that a plot to smuggle a bomb/suicide bomber aboard a plane has been stopped and that they simply MUST improve security by introducing these passes. The airlines, unions and airports won't be able to complain - as there's no actual evidence - and the plans will be forced through.

Thinking about it, doesn't the timing of this story seem just a little suspicious? An MP walks through security at an airport carrying a large knife in her bag and no-one notices. So she reports it to the papers. Yet she's not arrested for carrying a knife? Or attempting to carry a knife onto a plane? Wouldn't things have been oh so different if a Muslim teenager had done exactly the same thing? I digress again, but my point is, that it seems kinda odd to me that this story comes out THE DAY BEFORE this announcement by Smith.

Smith has been busy though, sadly, as her stupid mind has also let her think that we would be far happier giving all our fingerprint details for ID Cards (the ones EVERYBODY will have to carry, not the Airside ones) to the supermarkets, rather than have to go to a special Government unit.

On plans to involve retailers and the Post Office in the ID cards scheme, a spokesman said it would be "more convenient" for people than the government's original plan to set up enrolment centres in large population centres.

The Identity and Passport Service (IPS) would continue to carry out enrolment at its offices but a spokesman said it also wanted to
"drive down costs using market forces and competition" and was talking to a "range of high street retailers and other organisations". He stressed that security of data would remain the "utmost priority". "Any third party involved in enrolment would be accredited and audited to ensure they meet and continue to meet robust and strictly administered security standards.

"System design standards will ensure that no data is stored locally and that all data is transmitted directly to IPS using a secure communications link. In addition all locations and personnel will be subject to strict security standards set by IPS."
Let's hope that their standards are a bit higher than everyone else in Government, and all the details won't be left on a USB key in a pub car park or on a train.

I - along with a few others - are wondering just which retailers would sign up to this scheme. There doesn't seem to be much incentive for doing so. Both the Tories and the LibDems have said that they would scrap the ID Card scheme, so any company making the necessary investment in the equipment are likely to discover it redundant after an election. Similarly, any retailer involved would surely be the subject of a campaign to stop people shopping there. In the current financial climate, that would surely put a damper on even the most enthusiastic company chairman (no doubt eyeing themselves a peerage).

Unless. Unless there's a HUGE incentive for a retailer to take part in this scheme. Like being the only official supplier of alcohol in the UK? Like being the only supermarket allowed to open 24 hours a day all week? Surely the lure of a peerage can't be enough to entice a major retailer into the moneypit with the Government.


Just seen this on Guido and it made me howl. While giving a speech elsewhere today (hasn't she been busy, eh?) a No2ID sympathiser nicked the glass she'd been drinking from. Her fingerprints will be copied from it, and if there's any DNA on it, that too will be taken.

Not too secure with your data, are you love?

(deep breath)


Labels: , , , , ,

eXTReMe Tracker