Looking back it wasn’t so bad

July 20th, 2008

I was just looking at some of my accounts to see how much I’ve personally or jointly lost over the years.

Here are the figures:

Money made:

Affiliate Account 1: £2,372.50

Affiliate Account 2: £500.88

Adsense: £1,879.53

Rawpulse Sale: £120

Know Flash Sale: £1500

Total: £6372.91

Money Spent

Adwords: £2,006.90

Hosting: £400 (estimate)

Products: £600 (estimate)

Domains: £100 (estimate)

Total: £3106.90

Overall Profit:

£3266.01

Surprisingly I’m in profit, although I should state that the proceeds from the Rawpulse sale and Know Flash sale were divided between Joe and I as were the adsense earnings. The hosting and domain costs were also split between Joe and I.

So personally I’m £1766.25 in profit.

Joe is around £1399.77 in profit.

Of course, with buying things we’ve both probably spent a lot more then that since 2005. There are probably expenses I’ve forgotten about as well as earnings. I actually think we had a joint affiliate account that made a few hundred once.

But hell it isn’t so bad I guess. If only we were dedicated.

Car Crash TV

July 10th, 2008

This ‘People’s Panellist’ on Question Time is a joke. He’s worse than Alex James.

Glad to see the BBC is meeting its ethnic minority quota, wouldn’t want the EU increasing the interest rates on those loans would they now?

Update:

Oh god he’s trying to look good but ended up sounding like a ill informed Sun reader

Update:

God damn now the moron youths are scramming and the People’s Panellist is once again trying to make a point – “I think like… we should do this like… I don’t have a consistent opinion like”

Update

Oh god he just tried to make a joke about an 8 course meal. He failed miserably.

Update

He keeps interrupting people and not in the good way like Christopher Hitchens

Update

Point about a Muslim, cut to Muslim wearing towel on her head. Who knows maybe she’s just got out of the shower.

Update

Having watched some of the others I take it all back, he was the best of the bunch. Though he did keep interrupting and saying “like”.

Youths ‘buy violent games online’

June 24th, 2008

The BBC reports that:

‘Children are able to illegally buy violent video games through online auction websites, the UK’s Trading Standards Institute has said.’

How “shocking”.

As it goes on to say:

‘Almost 90% of retailers tested by the association sold under-18s movies, such as Saw, through such outlets.’

Oh sorry silly me, I seem to have accidently edited it. Here’s the original sentence:

‘Almost 90% of retailers tested by the association sold under-18s games, such as Manhunt 2, through such outlets.’

I’m sure glad I fixed that.

I wouldn’t want people thinking games aren’t the source of all society’s ills.

Of course there’s a simple solution to this problem or so this cunt says:

‘If traders cannot be sure the person they are selling to is over 18, then they should not be selling.’

Right… that’ll be every online retailer there is then.

Of course, he means this in the context of video games, but still someone should hit him round the head and point out that you can never be sure who’s actually made the purchase. I used my mom’s debit card plenty of times when I was under 18 and no doubt I probably bought one of those nasty video games in that time. And I mean I’ve only murdered 0 people since playing grand theft auto at around 13.

It kind of reminds me of that old resident evil site where you had to be over 18 and therefore input your date of birth on the front page. A team of expert hackers would have struggled getting round that one.

Also it’s only illegal to sell the games to a minor; it isn’t illegal to actually own it. Nor is it illegal to own a banned video game.

You want a banned video game? Import it.

But at least one of the bureaucrats did state that parents and guardians had “an important role to play in making sure their children are not playing unsuitable video games”.

This is the whole point. If you don’t want your child playing a violent video game, then don’t let them.

If only it wasn’t so complicated…

Grand Theft Auto 4: 1 Step Forward, Numerous Steps Back

May 9th, 2008

With stunning visuals, vastly improved AI and a variety of other new features, including the new multiplayer, there’s no denying that Grand Theft Auto 4 makes vast improvements on its predecessor San Andreas. However, the series also seems to have taken 2 steps in the other direction, with many of the features added in San Andreas and even Vice City, nowhere to be seen.

Here’s a List of what’s missing:

Vehicles

Aeroplanes (including the awesome fighter jet and Boeing 747)
Dune Buggy
Helicopters (only 2 featured in the game with the Hunter also missing)
Quad bikes
Monster trucks
Tanks
Bicycles (BMX etc)
Hovercraft
Tractor
Combine harvester

Weapons

Explosive Charge (C4)
Minigun
Flame Thrower
Desert Eagle
Sawn off shotgun
Duel Wield
Silenced Pistol
Swords
Chainsaw (not that it would matter since body parts can’t be blown off, I mean even headshots don’t work)
Sex Toys (no big loss I hear you say)
Parachutes
Brass Knuckles
Country Rifle
Heat Seeking Rocket Launcher
Tear Gas
Fire Extinguisher
Camera (better detailed pictures)
Thermal Goggles (ok not really needed)

Mini Games

Low-rider
Dancing (personally I hated dancing)
Big Rig
Ambulance
Fire truck
Taxi (partially missing)
Burglaries
Train
Tournaments

Other Missing Features

Stats (vehicle skills, gun skills, personal stats etc)
Stealth Killings
Turf Wars
No gangs attack you (as was present in GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas)
Swimming underwater
Default jogging pace
Buying Property
Rampages
Hair Cuts (not a feature I used but the choice should be there)
Car Modifications
Tattooing
Driving schools
Countryside (awesome for driving dirt bikes but the handling sucks now anyway)
Different fighting styles
Gym
Basketball
RC Toys
Gambling (black jack, horse racing, slots etc)
Triathlon Races

Bad Points in General

Unintended 360 Button instead of hand brake
Targeting systems locking on to people behind buildings
Terrible turning especially on bikes (I bought GTA not a driving simulator)
Hard to read text in standard definition (taxi, browser and phone messages)
Limited clothing options
Unlockables suck (every side mission seemed to unlock something different in the previous games, now all there seems to be is an annihilator helicopter)
Limited soundtrack
Less variety in missions (San Andreas had you riding shot gun and shooting, dropping bombs out of the back of a truck, doing a burglary, chasing a train, doing Madd Dogs mansion using stealth attacks among other things - all on the first island)

This list is continually being updated. Feel free to comment if you can think of any others

Free Speech is dead in France

February 8th, 2008

French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen has been given a 3 month suspended sentence for denying crimes against humanity and condoning war crimes.

What a ridiculous thing to be sentenced with. I guess Free Speech is dead in France. And no doubt if Europe gets enough power, they’ll attempt to make their holocaust denial law compulsory.

Now I’m quite sure some moron who comes across this will think I’m condoning the guys actions, and I guess in a sense I am. However this is only because I’m not a hypocrite who only allows Free Speech from those who agree with me.

I don’t look to the law to tell me what’s ok to say and what isn’t, it’s none of the laws business. I grant this to anyone else regardless of their beliefs.

Run, Skunk is going to get us!

February 5th, 2008

Another year and another report on how dangerous cannabis has become. This time including the ramblings of ‘The Association of Chief Police Officers’ which is probably made up of a bunch of hypocrite who indulge in a drink from time to time but who still feel they have the right to demonise those who prefer a different, less harmful alternative to alcohol.

Look, if I want to bash my head in with a hammer, I’ll do it. If I want to drink bleach, I’ll drink it. If I want take drugs, I’ll take them. It is my body, my domain, my rules, not yours. So stay the fuck out of my business.

If you’re not going to hurt anyone else then do as you please and screw what the law says.

Google is God

February 2nd, 2008

Yes, you heard me, Google is God.

I was a skeptic at first but you can’t argue with this sort of proof

A Scientist on Horizon?

January 30th, 2008

Shocking news, Horizon is going to be presented by a scientist next Tuesday. He’s going to be exploring “What on Earth is wrong with Gravity” and the need for a new quantum theory of gravity.

You’d have thought they’d have gotten last year’s Big Brother winner to explore the problem or at least Alex James – the guy who doesn’t seem to have a well thought opinion on anything, well except that teenage yobs aren’t as bad as the skin heads because they ”had a political agenda”.

If you didn’t see it you really do have to watch last week’s Question Time, which featured “Grammar School educated” James. It’s a feeling of embarrassment for James a minute and a laugh as well.

Sexual Discrimination is Lawful in School

January 18th, 2008

The high court has a ruled a County Antrim schools uniform policy, that prohibits boys (and only boys) from growing their hair to a length that reaches their blazer collars, is lawful.

Now I am not against such policies as long as they apply to all, which is why I agreed with the policy of a Muslim school that would force non-Muslim girls to wear a black bag, sorry I mean veil. Of course, if a Muslim girl attended a Catholic school she should have to submit to their uniform policy, which means no wearing a black bag, sorry I mean veil. Of course on the same line, a school that allows a child to wear a black bag, sorry I mean veil, should also allow other pupils to come into school with a brown bag over their head, if they so wish to do so.

Now in the case at hand, I haven’t read the judgement yet, but I don’t really see how they could get round such a blatant case of sexual discrimination. If a girl is allowed her hair below the length of the blazer collars collar then so too should a boy. It is like saying only Asians can eat curry at lunch (apologises for stereotypes), making such distinctions is blatantly discrimination and how any court could agree with such a policy is beyond me.

Heck I even believe that boys should be allowed to wear skirts if they wish to, it is all about equality – what is allowed for one should be allowed for another unless you can site scientific reasons as to why a distinction should be made. Religious reasons or what the pupils think is cool are meaningless in such debates and are as worthless as citing Jack and the Beanstalk as a reason.

I’ll have a look at the judgment when I have time, but I don’t think it’ll change my opinion.

Religion in the UK

January 2nd, 2008

Note: I wrote this some time ago and more statistics have popped up showing the secular nonreligious nature of the UK. There’s also been a further decline in Church attendance (for the Church of England) with statistics falling below 1 million. When I dig the statistics out from my bookmarks, I’ll update the post.

The statistics about religion among the UK population are not as faith bound as some would have us believe.

In the last census 72% of people responded Christian to the question ‘what is your religion?’ The second largest majority was the 15.5% of people who responded ‘no religion’ and the third largest, at 8%, were those who choose not to respond at all.

Taking the Census as fact for a moment (although I doubt it is for a number of reasons), what it shows is that the second largest majority are indeed the irreligious, hence ideas such as giving other faith groups seats in the lords, opening up more faith schools or stealth faith schools in the form of academies (not all but some), actually discriminates against a large portion of the country.

In my view however this irreligious portion is far larger than the Census suggests. Firstly we have the problem of children been included within the figures; children who are not of the age to make the decision for their self (also note the fact the Church actually fabricates its membership figures using baptism figures). Not including children in the figures would give a much clearer picture of those certain in their views.

Now there are a few problems with people considering themselves ‘Christian’ in the Census. A good case can certainly be made to suggest that a lot of the people who responded ‘Christian’ are not in fact Christians in any real sense of the term. Firstly a lot of people I’ve spoken to about religion will claim to be ‘C of E’, but pressed as to why, they do not respond that they have taken Christ as their saviour, it is normally because they were baptised as infants. They see it as some sort of mark. Other people it seems view themselves as Christians as a sort of nationalist thing. It is seen as some type of sign of ethnicity. This is also curious as the question of religion was placed in the context of ethnicity.

Other polls seem to suggest a less religious population. A YouGov poll taken in 2004 revealed that 56% of people claimed not profess a belief in god. An earlier ‘British Social Attitudes survey’ taken in 1992 revealed 31% of those questioned did not profess a belief in god. The number seems to have increased over the years as in 2000 when the ‘British Social Attitudes survey’ was repeated; the number shot up to 44%.

The unimportance of religion to people in the UK was also highlighted by the “Home Office Research Study 274: Religion in England and Wales: findings from the 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey (March 2004)”. The study revealed religion is the 9th most important characteristic that respondent’s state says “something important” about them. This came after such things as family, employment, age, interests, level of education, nationality, gender and level of income. You’d expect if religion was some pressing issue to people in the UK that they’d have placed it in at least the top 3 however they did not. Another survey show “42% of the population think the Government pays too much attention to religious groups”, this was second only to leaders of other countries by a mere 2% (MORI poll 2006). It is clear from this that the public at large doesn’t take religion seriously.

Among the youth atheism and irreligion seems to be growing even faster. The National Centre for Social Research study highlights this. 55% of those questioned (12-19 year olds) in 1994 stated they did not belong to any religion. In 2003 when the same question was asked, 65% of respondents stated they did not belong to any religion. That is an increase of 10% in less than 10 years.

Church attendance in the UK is also at a mere 7% of the adult population. A religious population would surely be attending church like in the US where 41% (Gallup poll) attends church every Sunday yet among the UK population we see no such thing.

Now in terms of issues, the British public time and time again seems to disagree with the Church. Take the recent euthanasia bill, while 82% of the public supported the Bill (NOP poll, 2004), all the “I shouldn’t be there” Bishops in the Lords voted against it. The church is also an advocate of faith schools but 80% of the public believe all schools should be open to anyone of any faith (MORI poll 2001), compare this with 64% of public stating they’re against faith schools (ICM poll 2005) and another 80% opposing the expansion of faith schools (YouGov poll 2001) and you hardly see an agreement between the public and the church. Also note the fact that while the Bishops try to make out they represent the views of the public – only 3 of them turned up to vote against the casino bill while all of them show up to support the Catholics over the adoption vote.

Although probably wrong to claim this is a “country of atheists”, it certainly is a country made up of a secular and irreligious population.