Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Quotes of the Week.

Debbie - "I don't like that kind of bread, it grieves me."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Me - "You can't take the bible as gospel!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Helen - "It was palpably envinced."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Colin - "OH MY GOD I PUT AN APOSTROPHE THERE"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Willoughby (of Sense and Sensibility) - "May I have permission to ascertain whether there are any breaks?"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Me - "So you sort of have to use your fingertips and hope for the best."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie - "Everyone looks so despondent!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Josh - "I'm not defiling my clean wholesome pirates with Harry Potter."

---------------------------------------------------------------

James - "Nine o clock is earlier now than it used to be."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Me - "All this bloody penis envy is driving me up the wall. We can create life, that's better than having a stupid penis!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Colin - "You're my wife now!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Rhiannon - "I blame Percy."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie - "I am not amused."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Colin - "You've probably given it brain damage from too much rotation."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Penny - "Yoodle ai ee oooohhhhhh!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Josh - "You're an alligator! High five!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie - "Meeeeehhhhhhhh!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Rhiannon - "Hahahahahahahahahahaha! ...oh you weren't joking?"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Me - "Bloody feminist romantics, they're sodding annoying. Mainly because I have no clue what they are talking about."

Colin - "Is the female romantic voice when they put their head on one side and sound like they've been drinking treacle?"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Lou - (about coursework) "Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and just go AAAAAHHHHH!!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Josh - "I want a platypus bear."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Me - "It is a bit, yes. If they carry on at this rate they'll be selling games which involve tamagotchis which have shops on them which sell tamagotchis. And then I'll get confused and fall over."

Benny - "That's not good. Especially if you're a turtle. Which you're not. But for future reference. Here, that's a thought!"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Me - "I don't know if it's an optical illusion because she's so small, but she goes skidding across the floor at an alarming rate."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Colin - "Oh, I don't do it for the money, I just like to feel dirty."

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Robots have officially begun their world domination.

This article is probably not serious.

You heard it here first, the robots have officially begun to take over ze - uh, the world. These humble links here below happen to be the articles informing us about the cute little instigators of our inevitable apocalypse.

Robot Holocaust Step One: Worlds first self sufficient robot.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/12/27/explorers.ecobot/index.html


Now, that first link alone is a little scary. I mean, it's a robot that can feed itself. It doesn't need our help to survive anymore, it can carry on functioning all by it's oneseys. I only want to say - What were they thinking?? This is the exact first step that we humans are not meant to take. The only reason the computers have not killed us all is because they need us to go on functioning, they need us to give them batteries, to change their power sources, to feed them, as it were.

As we all know that...some guy said,

'Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.'


And so,

'You give a computer a fly and you feed him for a day. Teach the computer how to catch flies and you feed him for a lifetime thus enabling him to accumulate the necessary energy come after you and kill you in your sleep.'


This is madness. I am convinced that Mac computers alone have the power to beat the shit out of us, and the only reason they haven't yet is because they are waiting for the right moment. But this? This is independent robots!! Am I the only one seeing the problem here?! First flies, next, human flesh. I can just imagine it, I know you can too. Huge, android esque robots, standing on top of human bodies, chewing an arm or two, musing about how their humble origins once included ingesting flies in order to live. "Ah hah hah hah!" they will say. "Hah, do you remember when we used to eat flies to function? Boy, I'm sure glad we evolved from that, human bodies are much tastier and more plentiful!" While the Arnie-esque robots stomp around in the background, unassisted by blue screen, for the first time.

Computers evolve, it's what they do. Kill it, kill it now! Just look at the twinkle of bloodlust in it's eyes, I can see it, I know you can too.

Robot Holocaust Step Two: Robot thirsts for human blood.

http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2006/11/robot_identifie.html?rss


So then, I went onto the second article, in which a robot has just happliy proclaimed that we taste like bacon. That did not help my above suspicions one bit. It would have been nice if the article had a headline like

'Fly eating potential killer robot smashed to pieces by unknown stripey individual.'


or perhaps

'Fly eating potential killer robot decides that it's mere existence is an abhorration, shuts down in order to protect the world. Scientists mourn.'


But no, the headline was

'I'm going to kill you and eat you. I'm going to kill you and eat you, now. I'm not like my grandpa, flies just don't cut it for me. BWA HAH HAH HAHHH!!'


It didn't actually say that, but I read between the lines. Dude, the robot wants to eat you.

Next, look at how cute it is. It looks a little bit like a character from Mario. Because we all loved the Nintendo. It tries to lull us into a false sense of security by imitating two dimensional stunted Italians with speech impediments from the nineties, but we can see right though it. And, and, it says that it speaks in a childlike voice. Anyone who has seen The Exorcist/Poltergeist/The Haunting/Teletubbies will know, that once you add anything to do with children into the equasion, the creepiness factor is increased exponentially.

It's cute which makes it evil by default. And then, they add a child's voice, which adds at least 20% to it's creepy untrustworthiness factor.

In conclusion: Independent self sufficient robots + cute stunted Italian child robots with a taste for human flesh = you won't hear from me for a while, I'm busy stocking my armoury.

I say we strike while they're still only a foot tall.

*wanders off to be paranoid*

P.S We have all heard that humans taste like pigs. Cannibals tell us that human flesh most resembles that of a pig's, and soldiers also tell us that burning human flesh smells like pork.

I'm just saying, we might be okay, until the little Mario robot tells his big brother where the bacon is.

Robot Holocaust Step Three: Robot cuts pork better than any human.

http://www.kuka.com/en/solutions/solutions_search/L_R232_Robot_optimizes_cutting_of_pork_sides.htm


...does anyone know where I can get me a tank? I really want one. Do robots breed? Do they have robot intercourse? Because if they do, someone should really put a wall between these two right now. What is the robot equivalent of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day? We need to know this now, before it's too late.

Disclaimer: The Raevyn has not watched The Terminator too many times, and it has not done irreparable damage to her psyche. Thank you.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Confusing Textbooks.

I could tell it was going to be a bad day when I opened my textbook to begin my required reading, to be confronted by the following introductory paragraph:

‘Unless we limit ourselves naively – or perhaps strategically – to some kind of limited or marginal issue, it is indeed precisely philosophical discourse that we have to challenge, and disrupt, inasmuch as this discourse sets forth the law for all others, inasmuch as it constitutes the discourse on discourse.’

Now. I do hope I can accurately and succinctly represent the thematic essence of yours and my own thoughts when I say WTF?

Perhaps the next paragraph will make everything clear.

‘Thus we have had to go back to it in order to try to find out what accounts for the power of it’s systemacity, the force of it’s cohesion, the resourcefulness of it’s strategies, the general applicability of its law and its value. That is, its position of mastery, and of potential reappropriation of the various productions of history.’

...

Third time lucky.

‘How can we introduce ourselves into such a tightly woven systematicity?’

Oh I hear you. I hear you.

Maybe not.

I am afraid. I am very afraid. I am meant to be reading rather a large number of pages on the application of feminism where the criticism of literature is concerned. All well and good. But the thing is, I don’t understand a bleeding word of it. Feminism has never been this scary. I’m tempted to make some joke in poor taste about this mere textbook that I hold before me being even more scary than large radical feminists with access to man-seeking weapons, but now I am just too scared.

I have read the first five pages, and been nicely baffled by sentences such as –

‘Re – semblance cannot do without red blood.’

‘That elsewhere of female pleasure might rather be sought first in the place where it sustains ek-stasy in the transcendental.’

‘We would have to ascertain whether “touching oneself” that (self) touching, the desire for the proximate rather than for (the) proper(ty), and so on, might not imply a mode of exchange irreducible to any centering, any centerism, given the way the “self touching” of female “self affection” comes into play as rebounding from one to the other without any possibility of interruption and given that, in this interplay, proximity confounds any adequation, any appropriation.'


Oh come now. I am utterly convinced that half of those words are not real. Sometimes, partway through a sentence, I get a brief, uplifting moment of what can only be described as sheer joy as I finally understand the sentiments of the sentence. But this is short lived, for as soon as I read a word such as ‘proper(ty)’ or ‘recto-verso’ or ‘irredicible’ (?) (and my personal favourite) ‘teleological’ (?!) then I sink once more into a thankfully metaphorical pit of confusion combined with feelings of educational inadequacy.

This textbook is bluddy confusing. I do hope that the next chapter is a little clearer.