Straight To The Point

The arrogance of smoking and smokers is getting on my nerves more and more. Why do they think its okay to injure someone else? If I walked into a pub and punched someone, I'd probably get arrested. But smokers have the law on their side. Whats the difference? Apart from the fact that when a smoker smokes, they are injuring everyone around them.

Why does some software think its so important that it can cover up your desktop and refuse to hide while its doing its job (or just while its loading)? Anybody who's ever used AVG Anti-Virus should have noticed that every time it finishes a virus database update, it insists on telling you with a dialog box that won't hide, even when a window behind it has been selected. Who does it think it is? And its not like I'm directly using it at the time - it updates itself in the background, so you can be quite happily using another program when bang! this window pops up right in the middle of what you were doing, and you have to click exactly on the OK box to get rid of it. You can't just select another window.

Another problem is splash-screens (the windows that appear when you load a program with that programs logo and copyright info - all the stuff you don't care about). When you've got a slow PC, programs can take 10 seconds or more to load, time with which you can be doing something else on your computer. So why do some programs insist on showing a splash screen that you can't get rid of? You're forced to sit there for 10-20 seconds, unable to use your computer, because this program thinks its so important it can cover your screen with its title and not allow you to get rid of it until it's loaded. Ad-Aware is a culprit here (though it is a good free program so I'll slightly forgive it). As I think of more, I'll add them here. Does anybody else know of any?

And finally, programs that insist on loading themselves into the system tray every time you turn your computer on. Why on earth does Quicktime need to be in my system tray? I use it approximately once every blue moon, but every time it insists on loading itself and extending my system tray to even further reaches of my desktop, just so it can start 0.2 seconds faster than if it had to load from scratch. Go away!

I completely disagree with him - a policeman criticising violence in video games - but it makes a nice change that someone isn't complaining about sex in video games (not that there's any shortage of either). I mean, here's GTA: San Andreas a (great) game where you can shoot policeman, kill hookers, and beat up old ladies, and its given one of the ratings they give them in America. But then someone discovers a mini-game based on sex in it! And "Oh my God! That's terrible! Lets up the rating, cos thats obviously far worse than killing and maiming!"

And anyway, I can't believe there's not an adult-rated film with far worse sex and violence in it...

The problem - how can a newspaper have an amazing and controversial headline, but the facts don't really back it up, and/or they can't bothered to find out the facts anyway. The solution - state the headline as a question! Hurrah!

Only yesterday, the Daily Mail has the headline "Is MRSA Out of Control?". Obviously getting the facts was not as important as scaremongering. And I thought newspapers were for facts, not opinion (though I feel I am massively outdated with this idea). Is it out of control? Who decides it anyway? If its me (the reader), let me decide by giving me the facts. If its the government, tell me what they have decided. If its the newspapers (as it seems to be), at least let us know.

By making it a question, they can use the defence "we never actually stated the fact", but unfortunately, some people will take it as such. The kind of stupid people who buy newspapers.

Why do radio station only play signed bands? The more I think about it, the more it smacks of a closed shop, especially in this day and age with the internet and downloadable music. The only good reason I can think of is the convenience of not having to get permission from each individual band (which, I assume, is required). If radio stations played unsigned bands, people can then go to the website and pay for and download the music if they like it, thus cutting out the middle-man. Why do we even need record companies these days?

There is no reason why radio station shouldn't play any band that have given permission. This may be a good start to removing the strangle-hold that record companies have on the music industry. I imagine one reason is the pressure that record companies put on radio stations (or in some cases) where the radio station has a vested interest in which bands get played.

I do have to say that the BBC is pretty good at this already, and has started playing some unsigned bands.

Since when were ITV the people's channel? There was me thinking all along they were at the mercy of the advertisers who actually pay them.

And while I'm on the subject, I didn't watch it, but the program last night called What ITV Did For Me sounded like an hour and a half of pure brown nosing and self-back-patting.

And I also remember the ITV Movie Awards. ?? How uncredible. I can't stand movie/music awards at the best of times, but who are ITV to give out movie awards? What film did they ever make?

When companies are fined (e.g. United Utilities), who gets the money? The Government?

This is a great game. Free download (including source code) at www.carlylesmith.karoo.net/lazersquad3d/.