All 10 entries tagged Stupid

View all 39 entries tagged Stupid on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Stupid at Technorati | There are no images tagged Stupid on this blog

December 28, 2006

Filler

SUPPOSEDLY if you’ve seen over 85 films, you have no life. Mark the ones you’ve seen. There are 239 films on this list. Copy this list, go to your own facebook account, paste this as a note. Then, put x’s next to the films you’ve seen, add them up, change the header and click post at the bottom. Have fun!

(x) Rocky Horror Picture Show
(x) Grease
(x) Pirates of the Caribbean
(x) Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest
() Boondock Saints
(x) Fight Club
() Starsky and Hutch
(x) Neverending Story
() Blazing Saddles
() Airplane
Total: 6

(x) The Princess Bride
() AnchorMan
() Napoleon Dynamite
(x) Labyrinth
() Saw
() Saw II
() White Noise
() White Oleander
() Anger Management
(x) 50 First Dates
(x) The Princess Diaries
() The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
Total so far: 10

(x) Scream
(x) Scream 2
(x) Scream 3
() Scary Movie
() Scary Movie 2
() Scary Movie 3
() Scary Movie 4
(x) American Pie
(x) American Pie 2
(x) American Wedding
() American Pie Band Camp
Total so far: 16

(x) Harry Potter 1
(x) Harry Potter 2
(x) Harry Potter 3
(x) Harry Potter 4
() Resident Evil 1
() Resident Evil 2
(x) The Wedding Singer
() Little Black Book
() The Village
(x) Lilo & Stitch
Total so far: 22

(x) Finding Nemo
() Finding Neverland
(x) Signs
() The Grinch
(x) Texas Chainsaw Massacre
() Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
() White Chicks
(x) Butterfly Effect
(x) 13 Going on 30
(x) I, Robot
(x) Robots
Total so far: 29

() Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
(x) Universal Soldier
() Lemony Snicket: A Series Of Unfortunate Events
(x) Along Came Polly
(x) Deep Impact
() KingPin
(x) Never Been Kissed
(x) Meet The Parents
() Meet the Fockers
() Eight Crazy Nights
() Joe Dirt
(x) KING KONG
Total so far: 35

(x) A Cinderella Story
(x) The Terminal
() The Lizzie McGuire Movie
() Passport to Paris
(x) Dumb & Dumber
() Dumber & Dumberer
(x) Final Destination
() Final Destination 2
() Final Destination 3
(x) Halloween
() The Ring
() The Ring 2
() Surviving X-MAS
() Flubber
Total so far: 40

() Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle
() Practical Magic
(x) Chicago
() Ghost Ship
() From Hell
() Hellboy
() Secret Window
(x) I Am Sam
() The Whole Nine Yards
() The Whole Ten Yards
Total so far: 42

() The Day After Tomorrow
(x) Child’s Play
() Seed of Chucky
() Bride of Chucky
(x) Ten Things I Hate About You
() Just Married
() Gothika
(x) Nightmare on Elm Street
() Sixteen Candles
(x) Remember the Titans
() Coach Carter
() The Grudge
() The Grudge 2
(x) The Mask
() Son Of The Mask
Total so far: 47

(x) Bad Boys
() Bad Boys 2
() Joy Ride
() Lucky Number Slevin
(x) Ocean’s Eleven
() Ocean’s Twelve
(x) Bourne Identity
(x) Bourne Supremecy
() Lone Star
() Bedazzled
(x) Predator I
() Predator II
() The Fog
(x) Ice Age
() Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
() Curious George
Total so far: 53

(x) Independence Day
() Cujo
() A Bronx Tale
() Darkness Falls
(x) Christine
(x) ET
() Children of the Corn
() My Bosses Daughter
(x) Maid in Manhattan
() War of the Worlds
(x) Rush Hour
() Rush Hour 2
Total so far: 58

() Best Bet
(x) How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
(x) She’s All That
() Calendar Girls
() Sideways
(x) Mars Attacks
() Event Horizon
() Ever After
(x) Wizard of Oz
(x) Forrest Gump
(x) Big Trouble in Little China
(x) The Terminator
(x) The Terminator 2
(x) The Terminator 3
Total so far: 67

(x) X-Men
(x) X2
(x) X-3
(x) Spider-Man
(x) Spider-Man 2
() Sky High
() Jeepers Creepers
() Jeepers Creepers 2
(x) Catch Me If You Can
(x) The Little Mermaid
() Freaky Friday
(x) Reign of Fire
(x) The Skulls
(x) Cruel Intentions
() Cruel Intentions 2
() The Hot Chick
(x) Shrek
(x) Shrek 2
Total so far: 79

() Swimfan
() Miracle on 34th street
() Old School
() The Notebook
(x) K-Pax
() Krippendorf’s Tribe
() A Walk to Remember
() Ice Castles
(x) Boogeyman
(x) The 40-year-old-virgin
Total so far: 82

(x) Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring
(x) Lord of the Rings The Two Towers
(x) Lord of the Rings Return Of the King
(x) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
(x) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
(x) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Total so far: 88

() Baseketball
() Hostel
() Waiting for Guffman
() House of 1000 Corpses
() Devils Rejects
() Elf
() Highlander
(x) Mothman Prophecies
() American History X
() Three
Total so Far: 89

() The Jacket
() Kung Fu Hustle
() Shaolin Soccer
() Night Watch
(x) Monsters Inc.
(x) Titanic
(x)Monty Python and the Holy Grail
() Shaun Of the Dead
() Willard
Total so far: 92

() High Tension
() Club Dread
() Hulk
() Dawn Of the Dead
(x) Hook
(x) Chronicle Of Narnia The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
() 28 days later
() Orgazmo
() Phantasm
(x) Waterworld
Total so far: 95

(x) Kill Bill vol 1
(x) Kill Bill vol 2
() Mortal Kombat
() Wolf Creek
() Kingdom of Heaven
() the Hills Have Eyes
() I Spit on Your Grave aka the Day of the Woman
() The Last House on the Left
() Re-Animator
() Army of Darkness
Total so far: 97

(x) Star Wars Ep. I The Phantom Menace
(x) Star Wars Ep. II Attack of the Clones
() Star Wars Ep. III Revenge of the Sith
(x) Star Wars Ep. IV A New Hope
(x) Star Wars Ep. V The Empire Strikes Back
(x) Star Wars Ep. VI Return of the Jedi
() Ewoks Caravan Of Courage
() Ewoks The Battle For Endor
Total so far: 102

(x) The Matrix
(x) The Matrix Reloaded
(x) The Matrix Revolutions
() Animatrix
() Evil Dead
() Evil Dead 2
() Team America: World Police
() Red Dragon
(x) Silence of the Lambs
(x) Hannibal
Total so far: 107

Now Add them up and…

Change the header to show how many you have seen!

What header?


December 27, 2005

Oh, beautiful

A good history lesson shall be had by all. Begone oh George double you, for here I am, Emperor of the United States of America! [Isn't there something inherently wrong in being an emperor of a republic? I might rename it once I find the time in my busy schedule]

I'm Joshua Abraham Norton, the first and only Emperor of the United States of America!
Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.


December 11, 2005

Stupid, this test is

But the result could be quite interesting. Also, try this site and find where on the political spectrum you are. Don't expect it to give you an idea who to vote for in an election, you're most likely to end up far away from political leaders. For some reason, I turned out a left-wing anarchist [like the Dalai Lama!].

Which Fantasy/SciFi Character Are You?


December 10, 2005

On maths and football

And how they don't go together

I promised a rant about the World Cup seeding, so here we go. Intuition tells you the toughest teams in the world at the moment are Brazil, Argentina, Czech Republic, England, and the Netherlands. Germany need more than one world class player [Ballack] to belong in that group, and the fact that PSV has beaten Milan twice this year says all about the current state of Italy. I just don't know the Mexican team well enough to say anything about them, but I think if you wish to include them, then include South Korea as well – they've actually made an impact!

But that's just [reasoned] intuition.

Here comes what I guess FIFA call maths and stats. The seeding list is half based on the country's world cup history, and half on the country's world ranking over the past few years. Let's pretend that ranking makes sense and see what happens next.

The ranking points

Ranked first by the end of the year gives you 32 points, second is worth 31 and it goes like that for a while, though the lowest ranked teams [somewhere beyond the 50th spot] still get a point. Since the world ranking system is a bit shady, and the top 10 teams are usually of about equal strength, this seems a fair enough allocation of points, and indeed gave fair results [with Germany and Italy indeed ending up lower, though the USA would have been seeded if only ranking were considered. Maybe a more scaled system would be better for this ranking? Say, if you beat a team higher you get more points and if you draw with a team lower you lose points or something. Anyone got Sepp's number?]. From the top of my head seeding based on ranking only would have given Brazil, Czech Rep, Argentina, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Mexico, USA. Seems the ranking's got a dislike of England…

World Cup history points

Only 1998 and 2002 counted towards these points, which kind of makes sense. There's no reason to include any older tournament, and as some '98 players [Cocu, Beckham, Zidane, Ronaldo] are still going strong, there's no reason to exclude that tournament [also, exclusion would skew the results even worse than they are now]. Brazil is the obvious number 1 in this case, being runner up and winner over those two games. But then what happens?

To compare the results to the ranking points, the max is 32 for winning the tournament. Then, as past performance do not guarantee future results, a ratio of 2:1 for the 2002:1998 games is applied, which sounds fair enough [supposedly, this is where the Netherlands were screwed, but don't worry, worse is yet to come]. The point allocation then is 32 for the winner, 31 for the runner up, 30 for the 3rd spot etcetera. Indeed, they manage to distinguish between the teams who reached the quarter finals, and even those who only reached the second round still gain a significant amount of points. Thus, England get an astronomical 20-odd points for reaching the second round in 1998 [sorry about picking on England, it was just a result that sticked out], hardly less than Argentina who beat them, or the Netherlands who beat Argentina, and less than 10 points apart from France, who won the trophy! And it gets worse.

The worst team advancing from the group stage still gets 17 points, equivalent to being ranked 16th of the world. Even ranking third in the group stage gives you 9 points, and being last is still worth 8. Thus, for merely being in the world cup, you can boost your total by 8 points. Hence we got an average team like Paraguay leaping past Portugal and Czech Republic.

Suggestions

I can't say I can think of a better system, but a ranking with Spain being 6th and their group winners Serbia and Montenegro somewhere in the 40s can't be right. I already suggested a heavier penalty for losing to or drawing with a lower ranked team. Points of the rich will go to the poor! Or maybe some sort of ladder system. Taking the ranking at a specific point [December] of the year is also unfavorable to teams who play more during the summer. An average rank over the past few months would be fairer.

The World Cup history system is even more ridiculous. It implies that if a country is to win a Cup and the next run doesn't manage to enter the tournament [quite likely for a European team], it will gain as many points as a team that didn't enter the first tournament, but reached the second round in the latest tournament. Kind of like the Netherlands and, say, Senegal [or Sweden, for that matter].

A system more discrete such as the Grand Prix credits would make more sense. The winner should get considerably more points than the runners up – if only because of the added value of actually winning the cup. Then semifinalists definitely should get far less points than the two finalists, and the same disparity should go between them and quarterfinalists. And why the distinction between quarterfinalists themselves? Why do Japan deserve 7 more points than Paraguay for reaching the second round in 2002? I don't remember one team any better than the other.

Ultimately

It doesn't really matter. It makes sense the Netherlands get some penalty for not being there in 2002 [and hence causing it to be the most boring tournament in history], and they're in an amazing group now so I don't really mind. Rather this than having been seeded and ending up with, say, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Poland. A Grand Prix like system with a similar ratio between the two cups might have landed the Netherlands in the unseeded group as well. Still, if you decide to publish the draw pot procedure online, have some common sense and make sure your system does as well.


December 03, 2005

Back in the day

Not sure how apt this result is. Really enjoyed the first 37% of The importance of being earnest, but can't really imagine myself being witty with Oscar Wilde. Though the dawn of the 20th century sounds like an exciting time to live in!

Unfortunately, the massive book it came in [it was a collection of Oscar Wilde's work] proved to be impossible to transport to England on previous occasions, though I might try again this time if this is truly my purpose in backward living.

Thorwald's Reason for Travelling Back in Time:


To make fun of the upper-class with Oscar Wilde

Time Machine!


Take this quiz at QuizGalaxy.com


November 22, 2005

Terminology

The maths department is in dire need of invigilators for an exam on Wednesday 4 January. Sums up everything that's wrong with the academic calendar this year, last year, and I just notice next term [that's right, we're gonna miss 4 expensive days of uni this year!].

Starting term on Wednesday 4 January is stupid because

  • You lose 2 valuable days of learning [or days useful for sports/societies];
  • Most people decide not to celebrate New Year's in or around Coventry [oddly enough?] and will thus have 1 or 2 days to move back en masse, leading again to stupidly long queues etcetera;
  • Students who happen to go abroad to see their families for Christmas will have to pay considerably more for plane tickets right after New Year's eve;
  • You don't have time to get used to the fact you're in a new year before term starts, leading to you putting the wrong date on everything you own.

Anyone else? Alternatively, think of how many universities use this silly term plan, and how hard it is to organize events with other universities while everyone is either on or off term time!


November 21, 2005

Criminal Intent

Where were you on the night of 19 November, 2005?

If your answer involves the Union, dancing to the funky tunes of Timetunnel, not only did you probably have a good night out, you also might have witnessed a malicious act!

On the music side of the night, I'm still not convinced by the mixture of everything between 60s and 2005, especially when there are plenty of ace songs that don't make "Top B 3 years ago's top 10" [think Bohemian Rhapsody or I am the one and only]. Also, a bit more persuasion of people to dress up for this event to match the cool decor [including Arcade games!] and the style of music would make it just that bit more fun when acted upon. Which brings us to the afromen.

These special type of Timetunnel [or rather Boogie Nights but easily converted] visitors have made this night their own and look forward to it probably more than the football girls look forward to Score! Hence they spent some good time picking their outfits and priming their afros to look fine for the night. One particular specimen, let's call him R, always transforms during these nights [see first picture] as if times are turned back and he ended up in Austin Powers' nightclub. His afro is always in perfect condition with a good black shine on it and all the curls rounded in line. Saturday night was no difference, and with the tunes of Jungle Boogie in the background the afromen with R graced the dancefloor.

Was it greed? Was it jealousy? Or was it a mere spell of degradation? Right after another jolly photo shoot, R's afro seemed to be disappear in midair. Some shady character [m/f] managed to grab the perfectly groomed wig leaving R and his fellow afromen in despair. A 5-song-long search ended without results, and now they need your help.

If you were on the Union dancefloor the night of Saturday 19 November some time between 11pm and 2am [Sunday 20 November by that time] and saw anything suspicious regarding the stolen afro issue [trying to narrow it down here, please don't inform me of any other suspicious behaviour, though you might want to inform the Union people, or the police, depending on the seriousness of your observations], please contact me, using the useful contact me link at the top of this blog.

In the exceptional case that you have gotten hold of the afro in question please be man/woman/kind enough to leave the wig in the Revelation pigeonhole in the Resources Room, Union North. It might sound all sound funny to you, but a low quality afro wig costs already 4 pounds. An afro groomed to such excellent condition as R's afro could be worth far more! Regardless of the cost of the wig, theft has taken place, and someone's night and future nights at Timetunnel has/have been ruined. Please do the right thing and return the afro wig to the owner.

Do note that the images do not bear an exact resemblance to R. Though if you do wish to recognize him from the images, bear in mind that the scribbly bit around the mouth is supposed to be a goatee with moustache.


November 17, 2005

Vowel syndromes

Writing about web page http://www.answers.com

Entries this week have effected nauseous feelings. A pedant myself, I was affected by the poor use of two verbs in particular. With the help of answers.com, I hope you will take notice.

effect
tr.v., -fect·ed, -fect·ing, -fects.

  1. To bring into existence.
  2. To produce as a result.
  3. To bring about.

affect
tr.v., -fect·ed, -fect·ing, -fects.

  1. To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar.
  2. To act on the emotions of; touch or move.
  3. To attack or infect, as a disease: Rheumatic fever can affect the heart.

USAGE NOTE Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of “to influence” (how smoking affects health). Effect means “to bring about or execute”: layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about.


November 15, 2005

Why smoking should not be banned

Writing about web page /bjkeates/entry/the_boar_this/

Writing about an entry you don't have permission to view

Okay, that entry title was mainly to mirror the previous entry, but still. Smoking is stupid. Anyway, here’s the entry.

On a break from doing what most people here tend to do(studying) I came across this rant. It led me to the Union website and I had a look at the forthcoming referenda. For the record, I hate smoking. I understand that some people feel the need, and usually these are the more polite smokers, that get out of your way, and don’t smoke while you’re eating. Some of my friends are convinced that smoking while going out will actually make them drink less [mainly coz they’ll be having a cigarette in their hand rather than a drink]. Wait. I’m losing the point.

Basically, I don’t mind people smoking when I’m going out – provided the place has good ventilation and a high enough ceiling. I’m more annoyed by overly drunk and unnecessarily pushy people, by the music being about 5 times too loud [especially when the building is quite empty], and the general sweatiness of the Union. But well, I can see a Union without smoke could be more fun and less sweaty, so let’s see what we need to do to get there.

This Union Resolves:
4. That cuts to Union services, as a result of this policy, will begin with the following:
The least commercially successful events (possibly including Vapour, Crash, Pressure, Coalition, Heat and live music events);
Society funding;
Opening hours;
Computing and support facilities for clubs and societies.

Now I thought Warwick student life is mainly bearable because of a great SU, with many societies to choose from and where each day you can have a different night out. Without the “least commercially successful events” the Union will discard all its variety. With less funding for societies [I’ll leave it to you to find out how much funding there is now. Suffice to say that I know of only one society that doesn’t need Union funding to stay afloat. Who knows, there might not even be a Warwick Boar!] many will find it hard to stay functioning, and students will have to find other ways to bide their spare time. Maybe that time will be spent finding another uni…

Lately I’ve found that policy changes apparently have to be drastic. In Rev, there was the motion to ban alcohol from big national events. There is no need to bring alcohol to the building, as we usually manage to find a church with a pub around the corner, but sometimes people just need a drink after a hard day of singing/organizing/general stress, and that time might come after 11pm. To ban alcohol from all events is petty and shows of little faith in the choir members to behave. Sure, there have been occasions where individuals lost a bit of control, but there is no reason to let individual actions ruin everything for the rest of the choir.

Now with the smoking ban, the only way to change the current badly adopted policy is to turn to zero tolerance? There are enough enclosed seating areas in the Union to designate as smoking areas, away from eating establishments such as Rococo, South Central, and the Cholo bar. Similarly, if you ban smoking from the dancefloor [which is where most people will/should be at Union events, and where most oxygen is needed!] you still leave people with the choice to smoke elsewhere in the building, where they can still hear the music, talk to their friends, stay warm, and get their daily dose of nicotine.

Most importantly, the Union will stay an important place in Warwick students’ lives. I’m not sure but I hope this motion is just a big joke, to see if students care enough to read the policy changes and see how ridiculous they are. If not, then I hope the policy makers will rethink the motion and see that there is always a middle way. And everyone will live happily ever after. Just with a slightly blacker lung.

EDIT: Just found the policy list here hopefully the link works, but you might have to sign in for the Union portal to see it. The smoking policy is 368. The only changes necessary I can think of now is making Rococo non-smoking, with the Piazza area smoking instead. Then smoke will be far away from the food! Also, the Graduate Bar and Club are not being mentioned, whereas they seem to be the more cloudy places in the Union.


November 07, 2005

Boredom strikes at 2

This looked so horrible that I decided to get rid of the stupid test markup and just give you the boring results. With 40 questions, and Hayley's results I can only conclude I have learnt nothing new, apart from the 4 mistakes I made.

English Genius
You scored 100% Beginner, 85% Intermediate, 100% Advanced, and 86% Expert!
You did so extremely well, even I can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!

You scored higher than 68% on Beginner
You scored higher than 7% on Intermediate
You scored higher than 81% on Advanced
You scored higher than 73% on Expert

Link: The Commonly Confused Words Test


Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • Nice banner meht! by on this entry
  • Now if only they could convict the show's directors for that annoying countdown and excessive editin… by on this entry
  • Whatever by Sue on this entry
  • i have to say your are handsome!!even if i dont know you your pics are catchy and full of questions … by sab on this entry
  • 1. Fact: I used to work as a security guard in the National Portrait Gallery in Wales. I loved it, s… by Hayley on this entry
RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXX