Xaotik Designs

Japan is finally ushering in the robot apocalypse.  First they make working Gundams:

Then they get to work making a life sized Gigantor

I guess that at least with the Robot Apocalypse, I probably won’t get raped in the ass by tentacles…

Handicap gun? Hip Swords?  Geisha Transform?  Giant bleeding robot buildings?  I’m not sure where Japan comes up with these ideas, but I think I like it.

Turns out, Wacko Jacko, really was a freak…

Grace claimed that while she gave the children a loving and stable influence they had a cold, uneasy and sterile relationship with their oddball father, with whom she was at the centre of marriage rumors in 2006. She said: “I used to hug and laugh with them. But when Michael was around they froze. I really miss Blanket. He makes me laugh. Only recently, he decided to do a concert for me. He was so cute, singing Billy Jean and other songs by his father.

…

“Michael always got angry. But what was most shocking to me is that the children don’t even have a teacher. They can’t play with other children and don’t have a teacher to help them learn about the world.”

…

Grace also revealed to Barak how Jackson had overdosed on drugs before.

She had to step in quickly to save his life. Jacko was taking a deadly daily drug cocktail including up to three powerful narcotic pain relievers, including the potent Demerol.

Grace said: “I had to pump Michael’s stomach out many times.”

…

She said that after the 2005 child abuse case he was left skint and his brother Jermaine “connected him” to Sheikh Abdullah, son of the mega-wealthy King of Bahrain.

She said Abdullah “sponsored” Jackson – paying for lawyers and other huge expenses – because he thought the singer was going to create a charity and make a CD with him.

Grace said that after Abdullah later sued Jacko, the singer at first denied ever getting money from him.

…

Grace revealed how, shortly before his death, Jackson was forced to bed down in the New Jersey basement of one of his former employees.

“We were running out of friends,” said Grace. “But we suddenly showed up at the home of Frank Tyson. Now Frank’s family isn’t rich. They have a small house. But we stayed there for weeks. I felt so bad.” Via The Daily Fix

And all that, without mention of children or his nose.  Of course, it doesn’t look like the rest of the family was really any better either…

As I stated before, the Nintendo is releasing a feature that will allow the game to play itself to get you through the hard parts.  I stated before that I didn’t like it.  I also stated that I didn’t like most games on the Wii because they felt too gimicky.  I’ve always believe that the with the Wii, they weren’t trying to make good games, they were trying to make games that were easy and anybody could play.  Now, I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing, to want everybody to want your product, but there is a limit to what you can do.

“What’s wrong with giving players a little boost through a situation that might otherwise put them off the game entirely? And since Nintendo’s championed accessibility by lowering the barrier to entry just a little bit, wouldn’t lowering it just a little bit more with Miyamoto’s system be a good thing?

Bigger audiences finishing more games is certainly a worthy goal, and Nintendo has shown that accessibility is the servant of engagement. History has rarely — if ever — dared to disprove the wisdom of Miyamoto’s foresight.

History has also never disproven, however, the principle that any medium and any message degrades the wider an audience it must reach. Art was never served by generalization, nor language by addressing all denominators. Entertainment for the masses ultimately becomes empty.

There must exist an absolute point beyond which greater accessibility means less engagement. Making a game so easy it can play itself for you at the push of a button just might be that point.”  Via Gamesetwatch

It’s like the old saying, you can blease some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.  And that is what Nintendo is trying to do.

A man who produced some great music many years ago, and quite possibly fondled the hell out of countless children during since the last time he produced great music, has passed away.

The FTC is looking to expand it’s coverage into into the blogosphere.  With bloggers writing reviews and talking about products out there, along with the huge push for creating the next viral marketing campaign, the FTC sees the internet as the wild west, and they are running for sheriff.

“Savvy consumers often go online for independent consumer reviews of products and services, scouring through comments from everyday Joes and Janes to help them find a gem or shun a lemon.

What some fail to realize, though, is that such reviews can be tainted: Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post.  Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all.

The practice has grown to the degree that the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

It would be the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online. The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.” Via Yahoo

By reading this, it would seem that I would be in trouble for a couple of reasons.  First, I don’t disclose specifically that the link to 1and1 listed below, is the referral link that they provide, and as such, I receive commission on anybody who clicks and signs up.  Likewise, when I like to an item on amazon, if you buy the item, I make a small commission on it.  By not disclosing this, it would appear that I would be running afoul of the new laws.

“The main target of the new guidelines appears to be the widespread practice of viral marketing in which companies recruit non- employees to talk up products in exchange for samples or promotions.

Companies regularly offer free samples and concert tickets to bloggers and journalists, in the hope of generating press. However, determining which bloggers are acting as an agent of a company may prove difficult.” Via Ideas That Spread and Financial Times (free registration required)

Aside from my main complaint of not getting any free stuff myself, I think that this would pretty much kill viral marketing.  The point of viral marketing is that it’s not supposed to look like an ad.  Sometimes it’s artfully done, other times, you wind up with the alliwantforchristmasisapsp.  Did the government need to step in and curtail Sony’s advertising machine?  No,  The market did that all on it’s own when they decided that it sucked, and found out that it was placed online by Sony themselves.  Likewise, people who do nothing but act as mouthpieces for companies and marketing firms tend to not have popular blogs.  People will go to the places where they know and trust any reviews, or will read multiple reviews on a product prior to purchasing.

Another interesting question that this would bring up, are what about sites that allow users to submit reviews, such as Amazon, or where people can leave comments on articles?  Am I to be held liable for any comments left on my blog because I didn’t verify wether or not the person leaving them is a corporate shill?  Will Amazon have to remove their user reviews in fear of FTC attacks?

In truth however, I don’t really see the FTC as being able to do much.  First, with the growth of web2.0, and the millions and millions of blogs out there, just exactly how are they going to police everything?  Second, the more that they crack down on bloggers here, the more bloggers will start looking for hosts on foreign servers where the FTC is powerless.  And third, really, where the hell is my free stuff?

By royal decree, our great President Obama has made flavor illegal.

“The measure, which Obama signed into law Monday, will ban candy-, fruit- and spice-flavored cigarettes and prohibit use of tobacco-product logos and brand names in sponsoring athletic and entertainment events.”  Via LA Times

Can I ask how this is possible?  How can you ban a flavor by law?  I can understand banning advertisements in schools.  I can understand banning the ingredients that are actually harmful.  But flavor?  Is this what should be considered effective governing?

I thought that you were a president for change, one who would make a difference.  If you really want change, then either make the damn things illegal or get the hell off the cigarette companies backs.  All this dancing around and pretending to do something when you aren’t really doing anything is just damn ridiculous.  Does anybody else see this as a complete waste of our tax payer dollars?

But of course he isn’t going to do anything useful either way on this matter.  If he doesn’t make up some law to crack down on the tobacco companies, then he’ll not be living up to his liberal expectations.  If he actually does something that makes a difference, then he’ll be known as the man who killed 50,000 US jobs and $13 billion in tax revenue, two things that don’t really look good on a liberal resume.

But that’s government and politicians for you.  Useless is as useless does…

If this is even a little true, then Sarah Palin, you have lost my vote.  Well, in truth, you probably never had my vote, but just for the sake of this post, I will say that I was going to vote for you, and then take it back.

If there is one thing that would kill your political career faster than fondling little boys, it’s joining a cult.  Hell, even semi-normal mainstream christian religions like Mormonism or completely mainstream christian religions like Catholicism are just about deal breakers when it comes to gaining the presidency.  People don’t like the idea that you are answering to someone (mortal that is, a god is fine) other than the voting public when you want to hold the highest office.  And the more outspoken or crazy that other someone is, the less people like it.  The idea that someone may hold excommunication over the presidents vetoing hand is not a good one.

With Hollywood, it’s fine to join a batshit crazy cult, we don’t care what decisions you make, and you hold no power over us.  You only exist to make us think that you are a cowboy fighting aliens for 90 minutes or so.  As long as you don’t get so crazy that it interferes with our suspension of disbelief, then there is no problem.

Likewise, if I know that any money that you get from me, promptly goes into the cults lawsuit and coverup funds, I get a little less willing to part with my cash.

While they have generally been known as a country that is always willing to back down from a fight, it appears that they are actually growing some balls.  First, they are trying to kick out the Church of Scientology.  Now, they are looking to ban burqas.

In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France’s Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.

“In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.

“The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly,” he said. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.”  Yahoo News

While I like the idea of not making women wear ridiculous clothing, however, I am sure that there are some women out there that actually want to wear these things, and not just because of the abuse they would receive at home if they took it off.  If they actually choose this, then they should be allowed to practice their religion.  That’s the problem, how do you determine if it is choice or not, how do you test it, where do you draw the line?  That is a very fine line too, and one with some extreme consequences, both in this life and the next.  Being beheaded by your jihadist uncle nor an eternity in Hell are great prospects.

On the other hand, I’m sure that it’s hard to move around the kitchen with one of those things on.  And quite possibly a fire hazzard at the stove.  Not to mention that it’s normally pretty hard to get a good look at the goods with one of those things on.

In the end, I guess what it comes down to is whether or not we can trust a woman to think things over, and come to a logical conclusion as to whether or not she should wear one.  Since the answer to any question involving a woman thinking logically is a resounding “NO!”, we are left finding a man to make these decisions for her.  All we need to do is make sure that this man is not a asshole and everything should work out fine.

Well that, or you can realise that the burqa isn’t required by the Quran, only requiring that men and women dress modestly.  Then just throw the things out and hand out some modest g-strings…