I just made a perfectly ordinary google request about e-poetry which brought the response from google "We're sorry... ... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now. See Google Help for more information."
Someone somewhere has told a fool that he is clever. Dungheads.
I think what annoys me most is the disengenuous "we can't process your request right now" because what it means is that they are going to do nothing. Ever. But they are too slimy to say so and would probably believe that they are being polite. Dungheads.
And the disengenuous claim that they are protecting their users. Dungheads with diarrhea.
There was no squiggle to interpret to prove I am not a robot; just a link to bollocks about contacting my network administrator, checking I haven't got malware and so on. Never a thought that they might have their brains up their arses. Dungheads.
Now I must go round the houses to get the information I want
Thursday, 10 May 2012
The Cloud and Sky Arts
I have spoken of The Cloud before: they provide an imitation of efficient wifi to Cafe Nero.
It's much the same every day; only every day it's different. The result of an attitude somewhere between "that's good enough" and "they'll think it's their fault".
It intervenes if you try to connect to the internet. Only sometimes it doesn't intervene properly. So I had to load my browser three times before it deigned to respond -- the way you have to shout some times when people get in the way and stand still.
It takes a while to load because they clutter their page with pictures and logos.
This morning, when it finally loaded, I had to click _get on line_ 7 times before it reacted; and it took me to another page which offered that _get on line_. That took 5 clicks.
Then it offered me the login page. I logged in and it welcomed me. And that's the end of what they do, beyond being officious; they don't seem to know how to hold the URL you gave the browser and take you there.
[If you forget your password, they ask for your email address and then take you to a page... where they ask for your email address.]
So I typed in the URL and... it invited me to login to The Cloud.
So I logged in for the second time; and typed in my URL for the second time; started work and, within minutes, it cut me off. I logged in again; and 15 minutes later it cut me off.
And every time you login, it says WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF SKY ARTS.
Quite.
That's Sky Arts as in Sky Elbow.
It's much the same every day; only every day it's different. The result of an attitude somewhere between "that's good enough" and "they'll think it's their fault".
It intervenes if you try to connect to the internet. Only sometimes it doesn't intervene properly. So I had to load my browser three times before it deigned to respond -- the way you have to shout some times when people get in the way and stand still.
It takes a while to load because they clutter their page with pictures and logos.
This morning, when it finally loaded, I had to click _get on line_ 7 times before it reacted; and it took me to another page which offered that _get on line_. That took 5 clicks.
Then it offered me the login page. I logged in and it welcomed me. And that's the end of what they do, beyond being officious; they don't seem to know how to hold the URL you gave the browser and take you there.
[If you forget your password, they ask for your email address and then take you to a page... where they ask for your email address.]
So I typed in the URL and... it invited me to login to The Cloud.
So I logged in for the second time; and typed in my URL for the second time; started work and, within minutes, it cut me off. I logged in again; and 15 minutes later it cut me off.
And every time you login, it says WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF SKY ARTS.
Quite.
That's Sky Arts as in Sky Elbow.
Monday, 7 May 2012
Cloud day
Further to my post of 27th April...
Click Neg persists in his delusion that the only way to save us all from something is to save himself.
In that he will be successful. The humiliation which awaits him will not penetrate.
Frankie Holland says he'll change everything and the many cheer. Sour Cosy shows that he always could fake humility but just couldn't be arsed until he saw advantage in it.
The LABOURed sTORIES still insist they can interpret the runes of public opinion - "what the public is telling us is..."
And the BSkyB clowns at the cloud continue to provide a substandard service. It just threw me off the net for no apparent reason and then announced that my password is incorrect. It wasn't. I remember worrying it was insecure -- bastards. Well, it's changed to something much more complex. Much good may it do me. Every day it seems I waste time coping with the incompetence of their dunghead coders.
Which brings as us back to STORY I T policy which conflates writing a small spreadsheet and writing a profitable adventure game.
Click Neg persists in his delusion that the only way to save us all from something is to save himself.
In that he will be successful. The humiliation which awaits him will not penetrate.
Frankie Holland says he'll change everything and the many cheer. Sour Cosy shows that he always could fake humility but just couldn't be arsed until he saw advantage in it.
The LABOURed sTORIES still insist they can interpret the runes of public opinion - "what the public is telling us is..."
And the BSkyB clowns at the cloud continue to provide a substandard service. It just threw me off the net for no apparent reason and then announced that my password is incorrect. It wasn't. I remember worrying it was insecure -- bastards. Well, it's changed to something much more complex. Much good may it do me. Every day it seems I waste time coping with the incompetence of their dunghead coders.
Which brings as us back to STORY I T policy which conflates writing a small spreadsheet and writing a profitable adventure game.
Saturday, 5 May 2012
style is all
Interesting moment on R4 Today this morning. The journalist Matthew D'Ancona, described as a friend of Boris Johnson, was speaking of the differences between David Cameron and Johnson.
He said "To say it is a difference of personality would be to understate it. It is a matter of style."
There you are then: personality as a subset of your style.
He said "To say it is a difference of personality would be to understate it. It is a matter of style."
There you are then: personality as a subset of your style.
Friday, 4 May 2012
The elect
Well the electorate, some of it, has had its mutters and mumbles and the sold mouths have been on the radio -- and on the tv, I am sure; but what would I know of that? -- telling us what it means, sometimes in great detail. They are generally talking shit.
Harriet Harman wasn't so bad as she has been this morning.
Hague was jabbering about cutting the debt left by the dreadful labour government within seconds.
I went for a piss and let fly a few farts. That got rid of him.
And now we carry on.
A few corrupt MPs have suffered; but most survive, voting with the pre-pack.
One tells us we are as guilty as the banks for cooperating with the banks.
Now that...
I could condemn him, call for flogging and crucifixion; but let's take it as it stands; and say therefore all the MPs who have ever cooperated with the sales of arms or in encouraging corrupt regimes, including our own, are, as he says, consenting adults and guilty of complicity in terrible crimes.
Now we can talk about punishment
Thursday, 3 May 2012
GM crops and evasion
Depressing item on Today regarding GM
They brought together an anti and a pro and didn't give them enough time
The pro found the anti tiresome and kept changing the question or point he was answering before giving his answer. He called the anti a naysayer and seemed in some ways to think that was a complete argument instead of an hominem attack, albeit mild.
Now in some ways not accepting a question can be excellent and admirable. Arthur Scargill used to be a master of not accepting the terms of the tyrannical question; but that is not the same as not accepting the terms of the question that you do not like because you cannot answer it without embarrassment.
At this point, the role of the chair becomes crucial.
Much as I am in favour of the BBC, it is a role they nearly always duck.
As here.
I was thinking deeply about something else entirely when this item was broadcast; and, as so often, have not retained the essential points verbatim. I usually can, or used to be able to; but as Customer Care evasion becomes more sophisticated -- and other factors occur to me -- I find it hard to retain dialogue designed to camouflage guilt and intention.
It was I remember to do with how beneficial GM could be; but the question concerned the likelihood that we do not know all the effects of genetic modification and so do not know fully how beneficial or detrimental the modifications are. This was not responded to and the chair timed them out. Thanks, not for nothing, but for something; but we don't know what.
The same thing had already happened with regard to the privatisation of hospitals. The CEO of one that's fallen into the sticky hands of an organisation fronting hedge funds came on and said that before he answered he'd just like to say --- and then answered a completely different question, an assertion actually, a straw person, he had authored himself.
This was challenged by the chair; but then the worm restated his own version of what their topic was -- in *his words, how to improve the hospital -- and that was not jumped on. He went on to say they were improving the hospital (without stating criteria of course) and so evaded the point on which he had been challenged.
They brought together an anti and a pro and didn't give them enough time
The pro found the anti tiresome and kept changing the question or point he was answering before giving his answer. He called the anti a naysayer and seemed in some ways to think that was a complete argument instead of an hominem attack, albeit mild.
Now in some ways not accepting a question can be excellent and admirable. Arthur Scargill used to be a master of not accepting the terms of the tyrannical question; but that is not the same as not accepting the terms of the question that you do not like because you cannot answer it without embarrassment.
At this point, the role of the chair becomes crucial.
Much as I am in favour of the BBC, it is a role they nearly always duck.
As here.
I was thinking deeply about something else entirely when this item was broadcast; and, as so often, have not retained the essential points verbatim. I usually can, or used to be able to; but as Customer Care evasion becomes more sophisticated -- and other factors occur to me -- I find it hard to retain dialogue designed to camouflage guilt and intention.
It was I remember to do with how beneficial GM could be; but the question concerned the likelihood that we do not know all the effects of genetic modification and so do not know fully how beneficial or detrimental the modifications are. This was not responded to and the chair timed them out. Thanks, not for nothing, but for something; but we don't know what.
The same thing had already happened with regard to the privatisation of hospitals. The CEO of one that's fallen into the sticky hands of an organisation fronting hedge funds came on and said that before he answered he'd just like to say --- and then answered a completely different question, an assertion actually, a straw person, he had authored himself.
This was challenged by the chair; but then the worm restated his own version of what their topic was -- in *his words, how to improve the hospital -- and that was not jumped on. He went on to say they were improving the hospital (without stating criteria of course) and so evaded the point on which he had been challenged.
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Unlikely body parts
Recently I have noticed a couple, perhaps three, newspaper articles where the meaning of the sentence is probably the exact opposite of what the author intended. I meant to blog them and deplore the collapse of culture; but forgot and then lost the paper.
There was one last night from a journalist -- this is all The Guardian -- which spoke of what a voter said after the journalist had been campaigning for some time; but she, the journalist, attributed the campaign to the voter -- they just can't handle subjects of sentences over any verbal distance. I imagine, but do not know, that the response would be to say that we know what she means. And for that reason, that supposition, it gets it mentioned here; because that is the fashionable response.
But the reason for this blog is actually another kind of grammatical idiocy.
The same paper, The Grauniad, today speaks of debris from the big Japanese tsunami arriving on the coast of USA, under the headline UNLIKELY BODY PARTS WILL BE WASHED ASHORE
There was one last night from a journalist -- this is all The Guardian -- which spoke of what a voter said after the journalist had been campaigning for some time; but she, the journalist, attributed the campaign to the voter -- they just can't handle subjects of sentences over any verbal distance. I imagine, but do not know, that the response would be to say that we know what she means. And for that reason, that supposition, it gets it mentioned here; because that is the fashionable response.
But the reason for this blog is actually another kind of grammatical idiocy.
The same paper, The Grauniad, today speaks of debris from the big Japanese tsunami arriving on the coast of USA, under the headline UNLIKELY BODY PARTS WILL BE WASHED ASHORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
