All 11 entries tagged Bizarre
No other Warwick Blogs use the tag Bizarre on entries | View entries tagged Bizarre at Technorati | There are no images tagged Bizarre on this blog
June 25, 2008
Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7472490.stm
How on Earth does this happen!?
April 22, 2008
Everyone will know that you can search Google for a word, and I should hope that everyone will know that you can search Google for multiple words. Fewer people will know that you can tell Google to omit certain words. When we compare these three methods, it shows that Google either doesn't work properly, or doesn't work as we think it does.
Allow me to demonstrate:
At the time of writing, there are about 9,630,000 results for "scientology", and there are about 746,000 results for "scientology -cult" ("Scientology" without the word "cult"). Now, logically, we would therefore assume that "scientology cult" would return the remaining 8,884,000 pages, but instead it gives only about 1,100,000.
What I can't figure out, is what happened to the 7,784,000 pages that neither contain nor do not contain the word "cult"...
I was in town yesterday, and I noticed a bus with an advert for the army.
I'd noticed them before, and I'd seen the ads on TV, but it only occurred to me at that moment: there is a very good chance that that bus is going to cause someone to be killed; by having that poster on the side of their buses, there is a high chance that Arriva, and no doubt other bus companies, will be indirectly responsible for the murder of one or more people.
That doesn't seem right to me...
January 16, 2008
Writing about web page http://youtube.com/watch?v=nSYEk0QnkGw
I've just found this video on YouTube. It makes for amusing watching, but probably not for the reasons its creators intended...
Scientology puzzles me. Setting aside for a moment the fact that it's nonsense - I mean, "setting aside for a moment any discussions on whether it's true or false" - I've always got the impression that Scientology's back story has a certain sci-fi feel to it. Now with that in mind, the fact the it was devised by a Science Fiction author is surely enough to make anyone suspicious of its validity... isn't it? And yet it actually has a decent sized following.
Maybe I can use this to my advantage...
People! I have seen the light! Much like the Pilgrims left England and settled in North America, so to did our ancestors many many millennia ago leave their home planet of Mars and settle here on Earth to start anew. And one day the descendants of those that stayed behind are going to come and reunite us and everyone will be happy and life will be wonderful*! But only if you give me lots of money*!
Are you convinced? No? Damn. Oh well, it was worth a shot...
* Not a guarantee...
August 23, 2007
Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6959049.stm
According to a report by Ofcom, people are starting to use mobile phones more than landlines.
This was, of course, of vital importance and impossible to figure out without in-depth statistical analysis...
I also heard that their next reports are going to be looking into what colour the sky is, investigating the price of fish, seeing whether or not computers do what they're supposed to 100% of the time, testing whether time heals all wounds, and calculating exactly how much a stitch in time actually saves.
August 04, 2007
I can't for the life of me remember what it was I was watching, but it was discussing the fact that prosthetic limbs can be tailored to specific situations - such as a more springy Running Leg.
This led to the delicious irony of athletes with two biological legs complaining about competing against athletes with one or more prosthetic legs because the "disabled" athletes were too good!
That amused me no end...
June 27, 2007
Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6244358.stm
Tony Blair as peace envoy to the Middle East!? Tony Blair!? Tony Blair!? Tony Blair!? Either this is a joke, or the sanity of the UN leaders needs to be assessed...
Was he, or was he not, one of the people who started the war in Iraq!? Isn't he a war criminal!? (I've checked the dictionary, and he is; there's
a set of criteria that are consulted before engaging in war, in order to determine whether entering into war is justifiable, and as I understand it the evidence used for going to war was a steaming pile of bull plop.)
Apparently his plan requires "huge intensity", but what I want to know is: what the hell does that mean!? It doesn't mean anything, surely? Surely it has to be "intensity of [something]", not just "intensity"...
Also, Ian Paisley can't count:
I just want to say to the prime minister this one word: He has entered into another colossal task.
I really really hope this is either a joke or me misinterpreting the article...
Also what's the deal with having a new Prime Minister without an election? Aren't elections how Democracy is supposed to work? (That's not to say I think he'll be a bad Prime Minister - it's not exactly a tough act to follow - it's just I'd have liked to have had my chance to not care enough about the result to vote on it...)
January 02, 2007
It’s always amused me that if you search for something on Google (kittens, for example) and then do the search again but exclude all pages containing the word “porn” (kittens -porn in this case) the given number of results will always go down; I’ve yet to find a word or phrase that’s so innocent it hasn’t had a single encounter with a reference to porn.
However, what’s confused me about the example I’m using is that kittens returns 12,800,000 pages*, kittens -porn returns 2,680,000 pages* (~10,000,000 fewer!), but kittens porn only returns 844,000 pages*. So either Google searches don’t quite work how I think they do, or 9 million pages keep appearing and disappearing in the time it takes me to search…
(* Correct at time of writing)
December 26, 2006
and writing about web page http://richardwinskill.co.uk/Random/dond.php
I’ve just thrown together a script the generates the numbers 1 to 22 in a random order and presents them as a rough approximation to the UK (obviously) DoND boxes. The presentation needs a little tweaking, but the pseudorandom numbers seem to work properly.
As I say on the page, I accept no responsibility for you doing badly and reserve the right to worry about the mental state of anyone who would blame me for them losing…
Think of a number, multiply it my two, add your age, half it, add the individual digits together repeatedly until you have a single digit, subtract it from the number you first thought of, ignore the minus sign (if any), and that’s the box you choose for Deal or No Deal; well, it makes about as much sense as any other method…
Seriously, though, I know this entry is coming quite a way into the show’s life (I usually manage to avoid it, so don’t often think about it), but how on earth did we get a game show based around the concept of choosing random numbers!? And how did Noel Edmonds get back on the air (not that I have anything much against him, he’d just been off the telly for so long…)?